Rhizomatic Learning and Adapting: a Case Study Exploring an Interprofessional Team's Lived Experiences

Home , Dialogues (Deleuze book), Rhizome (philosophy)

Antioch University AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive

Student & Alumni Scholarship, including Dissertations & Theses Dissertations & Theses

2017

Rhizomatic Learning and Adapting: A Case Study Exploring an Interprofessional Team's Lived Experiences

Renee Charney Antioch University - PhD Program in Leadership and Change

Follow this and additional works at: https://aura.antioch.edu/etds

Part of the Education Commons, Leadership Studies Commons, and the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons

Recommended Citation Charney, R. (2017). Rhizomatic Learning and Adapting: A Case Study Exploring an Interprofessional Team's Lived Experiences. https://aura.antioch.edu/etds/382

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student & Alumni Scholarship, including Dissertations & Theses at AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations & Theses by an authorized administrator of AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].

Rhizomatic Learning and Adapting: A Case Study Exploring an Interprofessional Team’s Lived

Experiences

Renee Charney

ORCID Scholar ID# 0000-0003-1661-1861

A Dissertation

Submitted to the PhD in Leadership and Change Program of Antioch University

in partial fulfillment for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

September, 2017

This dissertation has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Leadership and Change, Graduate School of Leadership and Change, Antioch University

Dissertation Committee

• Elizabeth Holloway, Ph.D., Committee Chair

• Laura Morgan Roberts, Ph.D., Committee Member

• Mary Ann Reilly, Ed.D., Committee Member

Acknowledgements

This journey would not have been possible without the love, guidance, and support of many. For this, and so much more, I am both humbled and grateful.

I could not have even begun this journey without the guidance, strength, and curiosity of my chair, Elizabeth Holloway who, when I first approached her about my interest in the intersection of rhizome theory with learning in organizations, was immediately engaged. Her interest in gardening and her understanding of root systems gave us a foundation from which to start and continue through to the end. Her unwavering support throughout the entire dissertation process was a source of great strength and care. Thank you for everything.

Thank you to my committee, beginning with Laura Morgan Roberts whose laser-focused questions and feedback helped me think more deeply and nourished my scholarly growth. I also owe a great debt to Mary Ann Reilly, friend, confidant, and expert in rhizomatic learning. If not for her deep knowledge of rhizome theory and rhizomatic learning, her far-reaching impact within and beyond the rhizomatic learning community, and her keen capacity to connect deeply with what I yearned to develop, this study would not have come to fruition.

To my PhDLC advisors, Al Guskin (during my first year) and Lize Booysen, thank you for your patience and interest as I unpacked my thoughts about rhizomatic learning in organizations. Your early and ongoing support and guidance helped me see through the fog that often arose, and step around the cracks and crevices on the path toward candidacy.

Thank you to the PhDLC faculty who all influenced my thinking and development while in the program, and who exposed me to ways of being that were both new and less practiced.

Your teaching, facilitation of conversations, humor, grace, and deep commitment to our growth as students and to the world of social justice propels us all forward. Thank you.

These years throughout the program would not have been possible without the love, care, camaraderie, and patience of the best PhDLC cohort, that of C12. We weathered storms and celebrated victories. We learned about each other and held each other high when needed. We cried, laughed, stepped outside our comfort zone, and tried on new practices. Thank you, especially, to my closest allies, confidantes, and all-around supportive cohort buds: Audy, Lisa,

Katie, Holly, Meridithe, Heidi, Mona, and Diane. Our quality hours of holding each other up by phone, screen, and in-person are immeasurable. And, thank you for teaching me the card game that shall go unnamed (you know who you are).

Thank you to my editor, Norman Dale, whose email notes at all times of the day and night gave me hope and the courage to keep going. I appreciate your keen eye and clear guidance.

To my study participants, I cannot fully express how grateful I am for your willingness to open yourselves, fully and vulnerably, to share your most poignant and intimate stories. Your lives, how you learn and adapt, and the ways you have become other through your experiences are what make this study so very human. Your contributions will pave the way for future learning and adapting.

To my family and friends: Chris, my son; Katie, my daughter-in-law; my mother Rene; long-time, dear friend, Rosanne; Rob (Mary Ann’s husband); and my many New Hampshire friends. Thank you for your love, care, interest, and patience while listening to me and cheering me on along the way. Your check-ins and questions lifted me, and your understanding when I needed to say “no” to gatherings and events have not gone unnoticed. Good news: I’m back.

To Michael, my dearest ally, best friend, husband, home-based editor, and all-around lifter of spirits, no words can express how very grateful I am for you: who you are, what you

bring, and your uncanny way of making me laugh at the darkest of times. I love you fully. All this would not have been accomplished without your support. You held the door wide open when

I declared this degree as my dream and never wavered.

Dedication

To Michael Drew Charney for your unwavering love, patience, and humor.

iii

Abstract

The purpose of this theoretical case study was to explore the lived experiences of members within an inter-professional team about how they learn and adapt while dedicating their lives toward the well-being of students residing in and attending a rehabilitation home school.

Although there is broad literature that addresses legacy learning theories and frameworks, as well as complex-adaptive organizations, very little shows how the application of rhizome philosophy principles address learning and adapting within an organizational context. This study is a step toward addressing that gap. Using interviews, thematic analysis, and storyline networking, the study explored in depth the lived experiences of 16 administrative, therapy, and educational staff who worked at the school. By using organizational storytelling as a means to unearth and analyze the team members’ 194 stories, a rich web of connection and awareness emerged. Their stories demonstrated new ways of being, learning, and adapting both within and outside the school, and revealed alignment with rhizome philosophy principles of connection, multiplicity, heterogeneity, a signifying rupture(s), and cartography, as well as alignment with legacy and traditional learning theories and frameworks, thereby offering a new lens of learning within organizations called, Rhizomatic Learning in Organizations (RLO). This study is an opportunity to expand and enhance ways of considering learning and adapting within organizations by introducing and supporting rhizomatic behaviors and principles within collectives as they work together. This dissertation is available in open access at AURA: Antioch University Repository and Archive, http://aura.antioch.edu/ and Ohiolink ETD Center, https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

Keywords: rhizomatic learning, rhizomatic learning in organizations, rhizome theory, learning, adapting, learning in organizations, nomadic learning, unlearning, organizational storytelling

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... i Dedication ...... iii Abstract ...... iv Table of Contents ...... v List of Tables ...... viii List of Figures ...... ix Chapter I: Introduction ...... 1 Learning in Organizations ...... 1 Purpose of Study and Research Question ...... 3 Limitations of Current Learning in Organizations ...... 5 Proposed New Framework for Learning in Organizations ...... 6 Origins of Rhizomatic Learning in Organizations (RLO) ...... 8 Overview of the Research Design ...... 12 Researcher’s Positionality ...... 15 Summary Overview of Dissertation ...... 18 Chapter II: Critical Review of the Theory, Research, and Practice ...... 19 Method of Review ...... 19 Definition of Learning ...... 20 Social and Interactive Learning ...... 21 Single-Loop, Double-Loop, and Triple-Loop Learning ...... 26 Transformational Learning ...... 30 Learning Organizations ...... 35 Rhizomatic Learning ...... 39 From Rhizomatic Learning to Rhizomatic Learning in Organizations ...... 43 Possibilities of Rhizomatic Learning in Organizations ...... 49 Synthesis ...... 61 Conclusion ...... 64 Chapter III: Methodology/Guiding Research Questions and Research Procedures ...... 67 Research Question ...... 67 Rationale for Case Study ...... 68

Rationale for a Constructivist/Constructionist Approach ...... 72 Data Analysis ...... 73 Rationale for Using Organizational Storytelling ...... 75 Storyline Network Analysis ...... 83 Method of Study ...... 85 Participants, Pseudonyms, and Place ...... 88 Ethical Considerations ...... 93 Chapter Summary ...... 94 Chapter IV: Findings ...... 95 Storyteller Context ...... 96 Storylines of Change ...... 116 Summary ...... 132 Chapter V: Summary, Discussion, and Implications ...... 135 Purpose of the Study ...... 136 Reflexivity ...... 137 Context ...... 139 Learning and Change: A Rhizomatic Storyline ...... 141 Hierarchical to Rhizomatic Structure ...... 144 Peaks of Learning ...... 146 Personal Change ...... 147 Change Within the Organization ...... 151 Gentle Teaching and Learning ...... 152 Meeting Where They Are ...... 154 Adapting ...... 156 Learning ...... 158 Unlearning ...... 163 Conclusion ...... 166 Summary ...... 168 Limitations of the Study ...... 170 Implications for Leadership and Change ...... 174 Suggested Future Research ...... 177

Final Reflections ...... 178 Appendix ...... 182 Appendix A: Study Participant Consent Form ...... 183 Appendix B: Guiding Questionnaire for Interviews ...... 186 Appendix C: Copyright Permissions ...... 187 References ...... 190

vii

List of Tables Table 2.1 Definitions of Unlearning ...... 39 Table 3.1 List of Participants (by Pseudonyms), Roles, and Tenure at School (in Years) ...... 89 Table 5.1 Relationship Between Learning/Adaptation Theories and Frameworks and Principles of Rhizome Theory ...... 168

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 General Appearance of a Biological Rhizome ...... 4 Figure 3.1 Study Participant Demographics ...... 87 Figure 5.1 Traditional Hierarchical Organizational School Structure (Root System) Versus Rhizome-Like Organizational Structures ...... 144 Figure 5.2 An Imagining of Asignifying Rupture or Lines of Flight ...... 161

Chapter I: Introduction

No one is told any story but their own. (Lewis, 2001, p. 299)

Today’s organizations are highly complex and faced with perpetual change. The agents who work within our organizations encounter moment-by-moment opportunities to learn and adapt in ways that require them to navigate change while embracing multiplistic thought and diverse perspectives. Gone are roles requiring only finite, technical skills. Business realities such as remote working conditions, rapid innovation, and the need to practice inclusivity of diverse and cultural perspectives generates opportunities to deepen adaptability and shift world views.

Complexity in both work and environment also requires agents to build relationships, engage in conversations, collaborate to solve problems, and navigate a maze of unknowns with grace, generosity, and agility. Agents must learn in ways that reach beyond traditional, instructional methods of reading, studying text, and absorbing concepts presented by experts.

Complex systems call for learning how to think, interact, and work in connected and inclusive ways. They require connecting multiplistic perspectives that lend to increasing creativity, and personal and organizational growth and learning.

Learning in Organizations

Historically, our working and learning lives have been overly coded. Assessments, measurements, and a developed comfort for fixed realities, have driven our ways of being in many walks of life, certainly in our educational and occupational lives. Mavin and Cavaleri

(2004) argued that, “most organizations are modelled on processes as if they were deterministic”

(p. 285). Our development has been grounded in test-taking, rubric-driven, and teacher-as- knower models. Our expectations about how we should learn and gain new skills have become tacitly embedded to the point where we are unconsciously drawn to a coded way of learning and doing. Holmqvist (2003) referred to this embedded practice as the exploitation of proven

2 knowledge; a reliance on what is proven remains rampant in our learning environments. He suggested:

Exploitation is about creating reliability in experience. It means productivity, refinement, routinization, production, and elaboration of existing experiences. At the same time, however, the very same learning processes contribute to an increased simple-mindedness, and a concomitant inability to explore new opportunities. (p. 5)

Traditional or legacy learning over the years, in both educational and business environments, structured as it is, has been within hierarchical, teacher-driven environments. It has been grounded in long-held beliefs and procedures that reduce learners to mere receptacles of knowledge, rather than encouraging exploration and discovery of possibilities, driven by their own interests and curiosity (Dewey, 1938/1997). The legacy of our learning systems has driven teacher-as-arbiter and student-as-passive-receiver practices that carry into our organizational systems.

Freire (1970/1993) compared this teacher-driven educational paradigm to a banking metaphor. He argued:

Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiqués and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. (p. 53)

Open, connected, and networked ways of learning and adapting require developing and nurturing so that work can be accomplished fluidly and creatively within and across our complex organizations. This requirement provides a new way of considering how learning occurs within our organizations, how we develop learning in ways that complement complex working environments, and how we develop agents to expand their capacity to consider new ways of working together.

Purpose of Study and Research Question

The purpose of this study was to examine an inter-professional team’s learning capacity while working together, and to see if or how learning principles, including both legacy and rhizomatic-principled learning, become explicit during those experiences. An additional purpose was to see whether and how Deleuze and Guattari’s (2002) rhizome theory could add to the understanding of learning and change in such teams. The team, a group of teachers, therapists, and administrators within a rehabilitation school, had the opportunity to share learning experiences by telling their stories, prompted by questions geared toward unearthing those stories. Their stories were gathered and analyzed within an organizational storytelling context, a constructive and interpretive methodology that enables individuals to share experiences in a phenomenological manner.

Along with examining traditional, legacy learning theories and frameworks, the study also overlays the theoretical learning lens, Rhizomatic Learning (RL), a pedagogical practice, informed by the work of Deleuze and Guattari (2002), and based on principles derived from a metaphor of rhizomes. Rhizomes are continuously growing horizontal underground stems that put out interval lateral and adventitious shoots. Their growth is connected, multi-directional, somewhat unpredictable, and resilient. Botanists have recognized that plants that rely on rhizomes often have an evolutionary advantage in surviving harsh and changeable external conditions (Bell & Tomlinson, 1980; Hutchings & de Kroon, 1994). Figure 1.1. illustrates the basic appearance of biological rhizomes—the rhizome is the part of the plant below surface.

Rhizome is defined as a, “continuously growing horizontal underground stem which puts out lateral shoots and adventitious roots at intervals” (Rhizome, n.d.).

Figure 1.1. General appearance of a biological rhizome. Retrieved August 25, 2017 from http://www.biology-resources.com/drawing-plant-tropical-10.html. Reprinted with permission.

RL is practiced in some traditional learning institutions and posits that learning is expanded when it is practiced in an open environment where learners can co-construct knowledge as circumstances around them evolve. Learners (and teachers) collaborate, explore, and determine what is essential to knowledge that is required to solve problems or ground learning necessary in the moment. As learners’ perspectives, needs, and learning journeys change, so does knowledge change and adapt to those needs, cultivated as a community effort

(Cormier, 2008).

This is new, uncharted territory. There is scant literature that explores how rhizomatic-principled learning and adapting are explicitly demonstrated across an inter- professional team, nor whether a rhizomatic, principle-based structure will produce the results suggested by the theory. There is also scant scholarship to date that thematically examines the experiences of those agents who work across an inter-professional team with regard to how they truly learn and adapt while working together. This gap presents itself as a rich opportunity to examine how individuals learn together and, as they collectively learn together, what learning or adaptive principles become explicit.

Specifically, the primary research question I wished to explore is:

Do rhizomatic principles inform, influence, and impact the way an inter-professional team and its agents learn and adapt while working together, and in what ways do those principles differ from, enhance, improve, or limit various legacy learning principles?

Limitations of Current Learning in Organizations

Current educational and organizational environments, non-hierarchical data representation, and interpretations, exist only within environments where agents have the space, freedom, and capability to enter a conversation, learning opportunity, or project at the moment when they are able to exercise their intellect, knowledge, skill, interest, energy, or creativity.

This construct of freedom to think and create is antithetical to outdated, hierarchical modes of command-and-control and legacy learning systems that have been in place within our organizations since the Industrial Age began (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). It requires a shift in how we view learning and adapting for agents to work effectively within complex, adaptive, knowledge-era systems. Uhl-Bien et al. (2007) supported this notion suggesting:

To meet the needs of requisite complexity, Knowledge Era leadership requires a change in thinking away from individual, controlling views, and toward views of organizations as complex adaptive systems that enable continuous creation and capture of knowledge. In short, knowledge development, adaptability, and innovation are optimally enabled by organizations that are completely adaptive. (p. 300)

Further, collective learning in organizations is achieved through working on projects, through their role-level performance, or through some other aspect of a finite, work-related outcome. Learning in organizations (in its purest sense) has not been nurtured as an activity of ongoing exploration that allows for making mistakes, reflection, discovery, or relationship- building. Agents are typically not in a place where they are free to learn to learn, or free to unlearn. These deficits, both of exploration and of developing capacity to learn and unlearn, impact business results negatively. Creativity is stymied and conversation is silenced.

For organizations to thrive, and to enable agents who work within them to connect deeply with their work in ways that are meaningful, requires new ways of thinking and being, both for the collective and for leadership. There is opportunity to expand beyond current scholarly thinking about complexity within the workplace and about how agents’ lives, and the environments in which they work, can hold deeper, personal meaning, and can expand sensemaking (Weick, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). This opportunity for new thought and new scholarship can provide enrichment within the context of agents’ learning and environments, thereby enriching their capacity to learn and adapt in new ways.

Proposed New Framework for Learning in Organizations

Organizations today are highly complex with regard to the way agents who work within them are required to collaborate and innovate across boundaries. The teams in which they work need to complete tasks while remaining nimble, resilient, and open to diverse perspectives from those with whom they work. This way of being provides opportunity for agents, teams, and organizations to tap into their, oftentimes, hidden potential to learn and adapt in new ways. It was this often-hidden learning and adapting potential that I sought to surface as I listened to the voices of others, learned from their lived experiences, and furthered learning scholarship.

Deepening learning, however, has the potential to extend beyond explicit behaviors that are often displayed when individuals and teams work together differently. When practiced, expanding potential and demonstrating new ways of being across the collective makes way for individuals and teams to increase their potential and, by extension, increase business results – visibly, demonstrably, and explicitly.

Deleuze and Guattari (2002) developed a philosophy based on the metaphor of the rhizome, weaving complexity, science, and art into its conception. New ways of thinking that derived from rhizome philosophy and its principles, have the potential to provide an

7 underpinning for enrichment. The opportunity that extends beyond these new ways of being and learning together is furthered through intentional practice, and becoming other, (Clegg,

Kornberger, & Rhodes, 2005; Deleuze & Guattari, 2002) while engaging rhizome philosophy principles of connection, multiplicity, heterogeneity, asignifying rupture, and cartography

(Deleuze & Guattari, 2002). Rhizome philosophy offers an additional, philosophical lens through which to view (and from which to observe) ways of engaging with others within organizations that expand legacy and traditional learning and adapting theories and frameworks.

The study of rhizome philosophy has led to the proposition that its principles may effectively apply to learning in organizations, thereby introducing a new learning framework that

I have coined as Rhizomatic Learning in Organizations (RLO), a possible expansion to the thinking and practices that have been perpetuated from practicing legacy or traditional learning principles. RLO—which, itself emerged from Rhizomatic Learning, an application of the philosophy to K-12 education—offers deeper dimension to those theories and frameworks by making explicit the value of ongoing re-imagining of grounded processes and ways of being.

RLO, when practiced, moves away from fixed curriculum and coded assessment (yes . . .but) to a possibility of perpetual exploration, creativity, and inquiry (yes . . .and). Like a rhizome, learning has no beginning and no end; in a rhizomatic sense, true learning always resides in the middle, a powerful intermezzo, linking past learning, tacit learning, and new learning thereby creating powerful perspective that influences ongoing learning. Deleuze (1995) offered: “Processes are becomings and aren’t to be judged by some final result but by the way they proceed and their power to continue” (p. 146). This notion conjures an imagining of perpetual movement.

Secondary questions that deepened my understanding about the inter-professional team’s learning and adapting, and that I anticipated would inform supplementary work included:

• How do agents learn and adapt within and beyond the structured, curriculum-driven

training they experience?

• What types of organizational environments enable learning and adapting to flourish?

• What do organizational leaders do to enable these types of environments (behaviors,

infrastructure, or processes)?

Origins of Rhizomatic Learning in Organizations (RLO)

Deleuze and Guattari (2002) developed the metaphor of rhizome, a horizontal root system, to describe that which allows for non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. Rhizome philosophy opened a way toward revolutionizing a small contingency of educational efforts within the traditional North American public-school system where researchers and educators coined the term rhizomatic learning (Cormier, 2011).

Rhizomatic learning (RL) is a learning practice that broke from traditional, standardized, institutional learning systems that most of us have experienced, and that have grounded us in our thinking about how and when learning should occur.

Teaching and learning based on rhizomatic principles, when practiced, situate both the educator and the learner within a space of curiosity and discovery, a space that opens a path to new thinking beyond what is often achieved from a standard rubric-driven curriculum. In many instances, standard curricula are still followed for purposes of maintaining an element of structure and flow. However, those who use RL, see, understand, and embrace the notion that learning is a co-created, co-constructed, and creative pursuit. Every student should have the opportunity to enter his or her learning, bringing personal experiences and perspectives (even at the youngest of ages) which, when tapped and set free, enable each to make meaning of the learning in which he or she is engaged, and to exercise agency in how learning is accessed and

9 applied. It is situated in personal agency. It becomes communal. It exercises new habits. It unleashes personal and collective learning power through co-constructing knowledge and perspectives.

I therefore chose to examine how RLO, and the rhizome principles that aligned with

RLO, expanded adult learning theories to date that also suggested open, exploratory, collective, and dialogue-driven methods of learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Dewey, 1938/1997; Mezirow,

1991, 1994; Senge, 1994).

Rhizome philosophy. Deleuze (1994) imagined thinking and learning not only as a finite seeking of knowledge or a finding of solutions to problems, but as a continuous, ever-moving process where individuals actively engage with problems that are presented to them, fluidly connecting with new ideas, new perspective, and new views of the world. “Thinking would then mean discovering, inventing, new possibilities of life” (Deleuze, 1983, p. 101). It was the notion of looking at learning as an experience that moved beyond the learning event (or even the subsequent application of that learning) to a broader context of implicit, life-changing experiences often residing within individuals that offered opportunity to see and understand life differently.

Rhizome philosophy and its principles, was developed as an invitation for societies to think, learn, and adapt in a different way. Its meaning has informed cultures to develop inclusivity with regard to diversity and potential emerging within those societies. A rhizome in botany or dendrology is a plant with a root system that grows horizontally or laterally, rather than vertically as does a tree. The rhizome most familiar to us is simple grass, but there are various other common ones: bamboo, hops, asparagus, ginger, and irises. Rhizome growth occurs from wherever the root system exists; plants can even grow in new directions from a root

10 that has been broken away, thereby beginning a new horizontal root direction. Rhizome is both invasive and hardy, thereby juxtaposing itself as a plant that replicates themselves (often indiscriminately) and lives in ever-growing, resilient collectives.

Deleuze and Parnet (2002) described trees and how they grow as depicting “an image of thought, a functioning, a whole apparatus that is planted in thought in order to make it go in a straight line and produce the famous correct ideas” (p. 25). Traditional images of trees epitomize hierarchy, directional division, and branching, in an ever-upward movement rooted in space.

Deleuze and Guattari (2002) also compared and contrasted rhizome/rhizomatic and tree/arborescent metaphors as terms of logic. Tree or arborescent logic uses a metaphorical image of the way a tree grows—vertical, linear, fixed, determining, and hierarchical. A rhizome, however, has a lateral structure; its system is a collective of multiplistic, mutually dependent roots and shoots (Leafgren, 2009). Rhizome signifies change, complexity, and heterogeneity

(Deleuze & Guattari, 2002).

Drawing on Boje’s (1995) discussion of discursive metaphors, Lawley (2005) suggested:

The rhizome [is] an organic metaphor for organizational activity as a whole. The rhizome, with its ability to pluralize, disseminate, and make new connections might serve as a metaphor to uncover hidden voices and stories within the organization which have been suppressed by officially-sanctioned organizational stories . . . the rhizome is about unlimited potential. (p. 42)

Rhizome principles. Rhizomes are part of a system of networked roots in constant growth beneath and above the soil; even when broken (disrupted) in growth, rhizomes continue to extend and develop new growth. This way of being—antithetical to the hierarchical and arborescent—defines characteristics inherent in organizational environments that are considered rhizomatic. Rhizome principles of connection, heterogeneity, multiplicity, asignifying rupture, cartography, and tracing are each described below.

Connection. Connection means that multiple thoughts or ideas can intersect or connect at various points in the story or system. This refers to the linking of different thoughts in the rhizome. Ideas are connected at multiple points. Each point of any one thought can be linked to any other point in a system.

Heterogeneity. Heterogeneity means that there are no requirements for connections.

Links or connections can attach themselves in various ways. No link among different thoughts has to be linked to parts of the same nature. For example, a piece of art could be linked to a particular social theory, which could then be linked to a political suppression, and so on. The ideas can be linked to each other in any way, not requiring homogeneity in their fundamental traits or connectedness.

Multiplicity. Multiplicity refers to the random and multi-directional aspect of growth in a rhizome. Growth is not contained in a one-directional line or path. The rhizome is not reducible to either one or two elements. Instead, it is a system of lines. There are not units of the rhizome.

It can be conceived of as a linear system of dimensions, of directions in motion, traveling in multiple directions from its original root.

Asignifying Rupture(s). Parts of a rhizome can be ruptured or broken. A broken element or connection in the rhizome does not mean that a particular element was bad or that a link between ideas should not have existed. The rhizome continues to exist. Differing or oppositional thought continues to grow of and for its own sake; it grows a line of new thought with the capacity to extend ideas in new directions. The new thoughts that grow are called lines of flight, newly-created ideas and thoughts that extend beyond the grounded or fixed ideas to develop new possibilities. New possibility reattaches itself in a new way to extend opportunity, to further create new thoughts and ideas. It is a fluid, transformative movement of thought and grounding

12 that enables individuals in “becoming-other,” (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002, p. 262) an opportunity to invent, create, and experiment to “grasp this opportunity, to accept the challenge to transform life” (Colebrook, 2002, p. 2).

Cartography. A person enters into the rhizome from a distinct point. It is not possible to re-enter from the same position, or for different people to approach the rhizome from the same position. Each person enters situations and creative processes bringing to bear their own, unique experiences and point of view. Each situation is different, so even a person’s point of view changes each situation based on others’ contributing perspectives and experiences. Each interaction can change some or all of the other interactions; the sum of the interactions is viewed as a map of the rhizomatic system, therefore every new interaction changes the system’s cartography.

Tracing. Tracing—also referred to as decalcomania (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002, p. 13)

—is the opposite of cartography. It is like tracing a drawing and allows for no creation. A key rhizomatic trait is the lack of this quality; rhizomes never duplicate themselves in the exact same way as they were prior. As such, duplication would imply entering a rhizomatic system at a place which has previously been used for entry, something inherently antithetical to the system’s conceptualization of cartography.1

Overview of the Research Design

This study introduced foundational underpinnings of learning and adapting as enhanced by incorporating rhizomatic principles of connection, multiplicity, heterogeneity, asignifying rupture, and cartography, with principles and concepts developed through legacy learning in organizations theories. The approach taken was framed within a container of a theoretical,

1 Tracing indicates the exact replication of situations and thought, which is in opposition to the essence of this study. Therefore, Tracing (or decalcomania) was not part of the thematic or story network analysis within this study.

13 critical, single-case study (Yin, 2014) and was conducted by administering the phenomenological ontology of organizational storytelling (Boje, 1995, 2001; Czarniawska, 1998;

Gabriel, 2000). The goals of the study included: understanding how members within an inter- professional team learned and adapted while working together, and how social and individual awareness of their learning and adapting could be made explicit through the experiential stories they told.

A critical, theoretical, single-case study affords the researcher to deeply examine a single entity, “analogous to a single experiment” (Yin, 2014, p. 51), and aligned well to unearthing anticipated elements of learning theories and frameworks that emerged through participants’ stories. The context for this case study was a single, learning organization. This case study— considered as a container, much like a metaphorical bowl—held elements of learning and adapting, allowing them to emerge and flow, through participants’ storylines to then be analyzed for themes and patterns.

Organizational storytelling, as a means to examine a single entity, allowed focus on one distinct organization while listening to individuals’ lived experiences within a specific contextual framework (e.g. collaboration, learning, leadership, or managing conflict), and seeking to understand how that particular organization thrived (or not) within its one culture. Gabriel (2000) referred to this phenomenon as, “organizations as terrains of nostalgia” (p. 184). Boje (2008) defined a storytelling organization as a “collective storytelling system[icity] in which the performance of stories is a key part of members’ sensemaking and a means to allow them to supplement individual memories with institutional memory” (p. 29). An inter-professional team that collaborates, solves problems, overcomes adversity, and innovates, learns from collective engagement. To this end, their collective lived experiences revealed common themes that could

14 potentially foster further understanding and growth within their own organization or for organizations beyond the school system.

An organizational storytelling context allowed for an intimate exchange between the researcher and teller where I sat in a place of privileged listening as they demonstrated vulnerability while reflecting upon their experiences. As researcher, I explored deeper as their stories unfolded, thereby enabling their personal points of views to reveal themselves in ways that had not been revealed in the past. Bentz and Shapiro (1998) referred to this as “intellectual x-ray vision” (p. 97), a means to reach below or get under the things or events that often go unexamined, thereby giving voice to the unsaid and unheard. It provided a means to share knowledge in ways that often go untapped within complex organizations (Gabriel & Connell,

2010) and presented qualitative data that could then be analyzed.

Organizational storytelling served to capture study participants’ lived experiences with regard to whether or not rhizomatic-principled learning occurred in their work lives and, if so, how they made meaning of those lived experiences using those learnings (Ann & Carr, 2011;

Bentz & Shapiro, 1998; Boje, 1995, 2001; Czarniawska, 1998; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Gabriel, 2000;

Gabriel & Connell, 2010; Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008; Jarvis, 1999; Maynes, Pierce, & Laslett,

2008; McLean, 2014, 2015; Rehorick & Bentz, 2009; Rubin & Rubin, 2012; Schaafsma, Vinz, &

National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy, 2011; Schwandt, 2007).

It is from this foundation that the dissertation drew relationships across legacy learning theories, methods, and frameworks such as learning organizations (Senge, 1994), transformative learning, and learning to learn (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Dewey, 1938/1997; Mezirow, 1991,

1994; Senge, 1994). This was accomplished by expanding the research question context to

15 develop a foundational, comprehensive review of the literature that presented the ideas of learning and adapting within the perspective of learning theories and frameworks.

The questions posed during the research further informed the study and promoted a shift given the context of the stories shared. Themes from the participants’ stories revealed insights into what the organization might use to develop future learning and adapting capacity, and to further create infrastructure to support adult learning theories, and leadership and learning behaviors that potentially support rhizomatic-principled learning in organizations.

The study was conducted with an inter-professional team that works within an educational and rehabilitation institution.2 The team on which I focused my study were inter-professional educators, therapists, nurses, and administrators at a day and residential school that serves clients who are emotionally, physically, and mentally in need of focused services to help them learn educational, technical, social, and life skills within a safe and nurturing environment.

It was within a time of privileged listening and holding space for others to share their most intimate and, often, as-yet explored thoughts that I realized my professional and educational background had prepared me for those moments. My interest in exploring and to excavate for meaning served me well as I embarked on this study.

Researcher’s Positionality

When we stand in a place of unknowing there are many options available to us that, if we allow ourselves the space and time to explore, enable us to create what we might have never thought was within our reach. We live in a world of abundance and, in that world exists the minds, hearts, and experiences of the many who surround us. Those many, the collective with

2 For purposes of anonymity and for the protection of the institution’s location, residents, and employees, this organization was referred to as “the school” or “school” throughout this study.

16 whom we work, can inform our creative pursuits when we are open and connected with them, and when we develop comfort with the notion of always being in the middle of things. Our open connections—and the insights we glean from when we are open—enhance our capacity to learn and adapt within our complex organizations. Open, fluid, and intermezzo connections provide new thinking; it offers us a means to become other (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002).

My professional background and personal leanings offered a backdrop to my interest in examining how others learned and adapted while working together. I worked for many years in large, hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations, ones that, for the most part, kept processes and procedures as unchangeable, not allowing open space for agents to branch beyond the established ways of being or doing. Breaking out of the corporate mold to exercise lines of flight thinking had been viewed as a radical move or “going rogue.” Staying within the lines, or constructed processes, was—and, in most cases, still is—expected and rewarded, even within the organizations claiming to encourage innovation. I experienced, first hand, the urge to break beyond fixed paradigms to free up the creativity that I (and, certainly, others) possessed. The words, what else? —informed me to become who I am today, imagining what could be different within our learning in organizations, and adaptive ways of being.

Years working in a learning, leading, and organizational design and development space also primed a bent towards curiosity. Language, both spoken and written, often drew me in. I am intrigued by story and shared dialogue, and how it fuels my understanding of my own and others’ experiences.

As an instructional designer, the way I learned how individuals completed their work

(and from that learning could design instruction for others) was through a process called protocol analysis (Austin & Delaney, 1998). Protocol Analysis is a method to gather others’ words as they

17 describe (in detail) how they negotiate through each step of their work. Often through their telling, and, especially in the cases where I gathered input from seasoned experts, their tacit knowledge regarding their work became explicit and valuably informed the subsequent instruction product. It was their telling that brought forth information and meaning in what they performed day by day. Their stories unearthed the deeply seated meaning they rarely had the opportunity to realize or share.

As a leadership coach, listening, sharing, and asking questions is foundational to the work that I conduct to help others draw from their innate, creative resources to meet their goals.

Practicing a connection with others from a non-judgmental, authentic, and curious place enables me to tap into what they already know or have already experienced, but have not yet expressed.

It creates a path for self-discovery and for creating a path forward towards other ways of being and becoming other.

This simple, yet often disregarded, practice of reflection, self-discovery, and connection, is critical to how we learn as adults. Connecting our life’s experience with how we perceive the world and how we orient our learning within that world becomes critical for adults to make sense of what they do in the world through exploration, curiosity, and discovery. It is from that place of learning that I sought to investigate how rhizome philosophy, its principles, and adult learning and adaptive theories when applied align with or expand open, exploratory, and dialogue-driven methods of learning and inquiry (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Dewey, 1938/1997; Mezirow, 1991,

1994; Senge, 1994). It is from a foundation of rhizomatic principles, learning organizational scholarship, and adult learning theory that I sought to examine the lived experiences of others regarding how they learned and adapted while working within their organizations.

Summary Overview of Dissertation

This chapter presented a conceptual overview of the study. Chapter II provides a review of pertinent research that supports these concepts, along with major themes and findings.

Chapter III explores the epistemology of the chosen methods of critical, single-case study and organizational storytelling as related to the research question and its subsequent research design, describing the protocol for the study, and presenting any potential ethical issues. It further describes the study selection process and interview protocol.

Chapter IV presents results of this study including: summaries describing each storyteller; their stories framed by events within their work lives that served as containers for story; the emergent themes of those stories; and personal observations that informed interpretations of organizational context.

Finally, Chapter V summarizes significant findings; explores limitations of the study, practice implications, and recommendations for future research; and concludes with personal learning reflections.

Chapter II: Critical Review of the Theory, Research, and Practice

Learning is central to being human and environments that allow for adaptive learning and creative agency furthers our capacity to grow, to develop, and to deepen the relationships within the complex organizations in which we work. In this sense, leadership as a construct, reaches beyond mere traditional management roles. It extends to the ways that agents demonstrate their agency as they work together, independently make decisions, and take the lead on overcoming organizational barriers.

To best understand the research question posed in Chapter I, one must consider the empirical context within which it is grounded, that of learning in organizations and the learners who exist within those organizations: their behaviors, how they learn together, and the ways they reach beyond organizational structures to grow their relationships and creativity. Chapter II focuses on learning theories and philosophies as they pertain to enabling agents while learning together within organizations and, by extension, how they learn and adapt while working together on a team.

Method of Review

In exploring the possibility of new theory, it was useful to review learning theories that exist today and juxtapose them with RLO. The research question, then, was best understood by examining the learning context as it related to adult learning theories, frameworks, and principles.

Learning theories, themes, and principles have been identified and provide the framing for the dissertation. What follows is a review of those themes including descriptions of the following frameworks: social and interactive earning (Dewey, 1916, 1933, 1938/1997), single-, double-, and triple-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978; McNamara, 2006), transformational

20 learning (Mezirow, 1991), learning organizations (Senge, 1990, 1994; Swieringa & Wierdsma,

1992), and rhizomatic learning in organizations (RLO).

Definition of Learning

The term, learning, when searched for, spreads across a spectrum of themes: definitions, schools, quotes, games, styles, texts, organizations, and more. I was most interested in narrowing in on learning as it related to individuals in organizations, lifelong learning, learning to learn, unlearning, and relational and socially-constructed learning. I turned my attention toward scholarly literature focused on adaptive, relational, collaborative, self-organizing, and co- constructed learning, as these ideas mapped well to the notion of learning rhizomatically. For example, Vaill (1996) argued:

Self-directed learning; creative learning; expressive learning; feeling learning; on-line learning; continual learning; reflexive learning . . . The challenge is to envision learning as a way of being, to imagine how these seven notes can interweave and enrich each other in our learning and in the learning of managerial leaders. (p. 56)

Vaill’s (1996) argument frames legacy learning theories that I present here as supporting frameworks for considering rhizomatic learning and the RLO construct. His description of learning “as a way of being” (the title of his 1996 book) supports Deleuze and Guattari’s (2002) idea and practice of becoming other, fluid, interconnected, emergent, integrated, in movement, and interwoven, through relationships, expression, creativity, and embracing others’ perspectives. Ely and Thomas (2001) further supported this notion. They avowed that learning, experienced within a relational context, positions that learning as a shared exchange thereby cultivating an environment of organizational integration and learning. Activities, processes, and relationships change as knowledge is shared across diverse agents.

Ely and Thomas (2001) supported learning as an interchange of relationships—diverse, integrated, and open to change. Knowledge is co-constructed and shared, thereby expanding

21 individuals’ capacities to grow and develop new thinking. These arguments accentuate learning rhizomatically by focusing on the interconnected and relational undercurrents of self-organized and co-constructed learning. Diversity of thought and relational sharing are facilitated by rhizomatic principles such as connection, multiplicity, heterogeneity, asignifying rupture(s), and cartography (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002), and are further supported foundationally by frameworks of social and interactive learning (Dewey, 1916, 1933, 1938/1997), single-, double-, and triple- loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978; McNamara, 2006), transformational learning (Mezirow,

1991), learning organizations (Senge, 1990, 1994; Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992), and rhizomatic learning (Cormier, 2011; Reilly, 2009, 2011a, 2011b, 2013).

From Aristotle to modernity, the production and curation of knowledge itself has evolved from a structured, categorical, fixed, or coded, and hierarchical representation, toward a need for networked, connected ways of sharing learning and sharing knowledge (Forman, 2012). It is this evolution that has called for new ways of thinking with regard to how we inform, teach, learn, share ideas, and create new knowledge, and is foundational to this study (Uhl-Bien & Marion,

2009; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). The following sections present learning theories, principles, and frameworks that ground future possibility for considering how learning can be further enabled and supported, and for developing new ways of being across the collective.

Social and Interactive Learning

Dewey (1916, 1933, 1938/1997), often referred to as the father of progressive education, defined education and learning as both social and interactive processes. He espoused learning as an activity that is open, exploratory, and experiential within an environment where individuals could interact with each other and learn from those interactions. Learning, according to Dewey, was an activity that was centered on motion, movement, and exchange, (more student-driven involvement and less teacher-driven direction), thereby building self-habits that furthered

22 learning acquisition and sharing capacity. Dewey (1938/1997) also promoted the notion of enabling power to learn and suggested that learning power encouraged:

The formation of habits. Habits [that] give control over the environment, power to utilize it for human purposes. Habits take the form both of habituation, or a general and persistent balance of organic activities with the surroundings, and of active capacities to readjust activity to meet new conditions. The former furnishes the background of growth; the latter constitute growing. (p. 62)

Dewey (1938/1997) described traditional standards-and-testing means of education as,

“artificial in the old selection and arrangement of subjects and methods” and said that this

“artificiality . . . leads to unnecessary complexity” (p. 30). He continued by suggesting that this alternate way was “simpler in principle” (p. 30) as opposed to opening a possibility for exploration or reflection. It is much easier to keep to a plan and to control learners by following a standard roadmap. It paves the way for “the easiest course . . . to follow the line of least resistance” (p. 30).

Our organizations are becoming increasingly complex, yet learning in organizations oftentimes mirrors striated, fixed learning environments that we have experienced (and have become grounded in) from our earlier educational and institutional systems. Emulating this way of learning in our organizations further cultivates similar behaviors in the way workers share and work with each other; it grounds workers’ (and organizations’) expectations that learning is best achieved in traditional ways such as classrooms, self-study, or, today, webinars. It leads to learning outcomes being rewarded based on knowledge-checks developed within curricula, and that well-established procedures, rather than exploring new ways of doing things, are reliable and predictable (Holmqvist, 2003).

Holmqvist (2003) discusses this commitment to steadfastly hold on to what is established, in alignment with what March (1991) and Levinthal and March (1993) named as the process of exploitation. Holmqvist (2003) explained:

Exploiting proven routines rather than providing open space for exploring innovative ideas is rampant in both traditional education and organizational life (Dewey, 1933, 1938/1997;

Holmqvist, 2003, 2009; Schön, 1971). Fixed-state, striated learning situated in territorialized ways of being has stunted innovation, passion, potential, and ongoing development (Heifetz,

1994, Sinclair, 2007). It blocks individual and collective reflection, thereby blocking the power to learn (Dewey, 1916).

Dewey’s learning philosophy focused on themes that released the blockage formed by fixed or striated ways of learning. Those themes such as continuity, interaction, and reflection became hallmarks of how learning could be strengthened or weakened, made free or stymied

(Dewey, 1933, 1938/1997).

Continuity. Dewey philosophically held to continuity as an important element in learning. Continuity referred to how experiences, both past and present, influence future experiences. Each experience is stored within every learner and “is a moving force” (Dewey,

1938/1997, p. 38). Those experiences are then carried on into the future, whether one anticipates it or not. Stored experiences carried forward fuel further learning. Reflecting on past learning informs current and future learning (Dewey, 1933). Experiences propel movement onto new territories of learning.

Continuity is deepened through experience, practice, and, subsequently, habit-building that results in personal change. Dewey (1938/1997) argued:

The basic characteristic of habit is that every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while this modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences. For it is a somewhat different person who enters into them . . . the principle of continuity of experience means that every experience

both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after. (p. 35)

Interaction. Dewey also ascribed to the principle of interaction as a vital learning element. Interaction “interprets an experience in its function and force . . . [it] assigns equal rights to both factors in experience—objective and internal conditions” (Dewey, 1938/1997, p. 42). Isolation within a classroom, for example, and focusing upon only book knowledge or that which the educator espouses, does not fully provide the experiential marriage between objective elements and the internal perspective of the learner. Both are required for a full experience to occur; both provide the impetus for personal change.

The purpose of interaction is to learn through reflecting upon experience which is a precursor to inquiry, a critical component to learning. Dewey claimed that “reflective thinking impels to inquiry” (Dewey, 1933, p. 7) and defined reflective thinking as “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 9). Edwards, Hanson, Raggatt, and

Open University (1996) expanded upon Dewey’s (1933) argument:

After [an] experience, there occurs a processing phase: this is the area of reflection. Reflection is an important human activity in which people recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it. It is this working with experience that is important in learning. (p. 33)

Dewey’s learning perspective focused on opening paths for learning power to thrive, for learners to interact with each other, and to discover together within an environment that is socially driven and not bound by rigidity. Learning in this manner forms new mental maps that, in turn, change the subsequent organizational experience and learning cartography, an important facet when working across complex systems.

Reflection. Dewey (1933) was also interested in how individuals think and “identified several modes of thought including belief, imagination, and stream of consciousness, but the

25 mode he was most interested in was reflection” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 844). Although Dewian writings require effort to unpack and decipher, as his way of defining terms can be a journey of discovery in itself, the closest he came to defining reflection was the following: “Reflection thus implies that something is believed in (or disbelieved in), not on its own direct account, but through something else which stands as witness, evidence, proof, voucher, warrant; that is, as ground of belief” (p. 8).

Reflection is often either misunderstood or misrepresented. There are multiple definitions of reflection, multiple perspectives regarding its practice, application, and outcome and how it contributes to learning and adapting (Argyris & Schön, 1974; Bolton, 2005; Boud, Keogh, &

Walker, 1985; Dewey, 1933; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Lipman, 1991; Pollard, 2005; Rodgers,

2002; Roffey-Barentsen & Malthouse, 2009; Schön, 1987; Smith, 1992). Short of a precise

Dewian definition of reflection, Rodgers (2002) equated his descriptions of reflection with the term, inquiry. From that description, Rodgers (2002) distilled certain reflection criteria from

Dewey’s writing and captured the essence that may resonate and map to Dewey’s original ideas regarding reflection and learning. They are:

1. Reflection is a meaning-making process that moves a learner from one experience into the next with deeper understanding of its relationships, and connections to other experiences and ideas. It is the thread that makes continuity of learning possible, and ensures the progress of the individual and, ultimately, society. It is a means to essentially moral ends. 2. Reflection is a systematic, rigorous, disciplined way of thinking, with its roots in scientific inquiry. 3. Reflection needs to happen in community, in interaction with others.

4. Reflection requires attitudes that value the personal and intellectual growth of oneself and of others. (p. 845)

Sinclair (2007) suggested that “three values were central [with regard to social and interactive learning]: reflection, experiential learning, and taking a critical perspective on leadership” (p. 42). Sinclair (2007) further argued:

Reflection, experiential methods, and critical perspective—have all, in their own right, been extensively discussed in research . . . Postmodern theorists have also added their own interest in the structural conditions of “reflexivity” which basically means a commitment to seeing the connection between what one thinks and the structural circumstances of one’s situation (power, resources, and so on) that enable and constrain which ideas can be taken up. (pp. 42–43)

As we consider complex and complex-adaptive organizations, specifically agents within those organizations that interact, solve problems together, and learn with and from each other, there is opportunity to further examine reflection as it pertains to social and interactive learning and its relationship regarding the freedom to reflect, connect, and move toward new learning.

The freedom to collaborate, explore, reflect, test, fail, and learn from mistakes or successes is quite often heralded as drivers for success, but is just as often unsupported by leadership or organizational structures (Zimmerman & Hurst, 1993). This freedom is conceivable when fixed, striated systems are dismantled, unhinged, and opened for that movement to be made possible.

Social and interactive learning becomes possible when agents within organizations are free to work together, discover together, reflect upon their learning both individually and collectively, and connect their experiences to further deepen their learning.

Single-Loop, Double-Loop, and Triple-Loop Learning

Argyris and Schön’s (1978) learning philosophy focused, in part, on two contrasting forms of learning—single-loop and double-loop learning. Later, this was extended by others to include triple-loop learning (G. Bateson, 2000; Flood & Romm, 1996; Isaacs, 1993; McNamara,

2006; Peschl, 2007; Romme & Van Witteloostuijn, 1999; Snell & Chak, 1998; Swieringa &

Wierdsma, 1992; Tosey, Visser, & Saunders, 2012; Yuthas, Dillard, & Rogers, 2004;). Peschl

(2007), for example, defined triple-loop learning as “a learning strategy [that] offers . . . an

“epistemo-existential strategy for profound change on various levels” (p. 136). Triple-loop

27 learning extends beyond learning what was seen or measured toward what might be possible beyond concrete evidence.

For Argyris and Schön (1978), all learning occurs by identifying, reflecting upon, and correcting errors; learning is grounded in the exchange and reflection of ideas seeded through multiple perspectives. In single-loop learning, when an error occurs, most individuals seek an alternative method that addresses errors within fixed variables (rules) that were already in place.

Goals, values, plans, and rules that were already established are used as a framework to operationalize within the problem rather than reflect upon and seek alternative means to solving the problem. This method thrives well within an organizational structure that is highly striated and coded (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002; Deleuze & Parnet, 2002). It is an environment managed hierarchically by direction and firm structures. Agents in this type of organization often possess fixed mindsets (Dweck, 2006) and, although the organization may be complex requiring possibility-thinking to grow, leaders and agents eschew those concepts and are grounded on one- way thinking, one where the leader “specif[ies] a future desired state and alters the structure of the organization to achieve that [one] desired state” (Plowman et al, 2007, p. 354). Agents are directed in how to think and do; they are not encouraged to inquire and explore.

Alternatively, individuals might question or challenge predetermined, governing variables; they might examine and test them against alternative solutions to learn new ways of solving problems. This alternative way of exploration is defined as double-loop learning.

Following an alternate route to solve problems may shift original governing variables and, in turn, change how the overall organization examines and solves similar problems in the future.

The practice of double-loop learning develops learning habits where learners connect, explore, remap, and reground processes based on alternate perspectives. Entry and re-entry within

28 organizational knowledge and learning cartography can vary depending on what alternatives are needed or achieved. This type of learning often helps learners understand why one solution works better than another, not necessarily to eschew prior solutions, but rather to keep what works and change what does not work.

An example of a single loop learning system is a thermostat that automatically turns on a heater when the temperature drops to 68 degrees. A condition occurs—the temperature reaches

68 degrees—and the thermostat automatically turns on the heat every time. McNamara (2006) described this step as following the rules.

The double-loop learning example takes an extra step, imagining that the thermostat asks an exploratory question such as, “Why am I set at 68 degrees?” and then evaluates if an alternate temperature would be more appropriate, economically, for example. McNamara (2006) coined this step as changing the rules, a shift in mindset regarding the thermostat’s original assumption of why or how it works the way it does.

McNamara (2006) described triple-loop learning as learning about learning. In this step, the thermostat double-loop learns about triple-loop learning by asking questions such as: Why do we have a system that requires a thermostat? Might there be another way to provide, or regulate, heat beyond using a thermostat? These are questions of deep exploration and inquiry beyond ordinary thermostats themselves; they are questions that take flight from deeply grounded belief systems about heat-generation and pre-existing systems.

An organization that practices triple-loop learning considers the heterogeneous nature of the situation and explores variables that extends thinking beyond the current problem. The learner, through heterogeneous exchange, embraces multiplistic variables and changes perspectives by embracing new possibilities. For example, their previous attachment regarding

29 how thermostats work (or have been designed to work) becomes detached or unhinged; their thinking then is able to take flight to consider new meaning about thermostats, how they work, and their overall purpose.

The practice of triple-loop learning opens space for individuals to self-reflect with regard to their beliefs about a situation or problem and allows for social exploration and reflection as multiple ideas are considered. It is concerned with self-reflexive and socially-constructed meaning-making (Corlett, 2013) through learners’ shared stories regarding their experience

(about thermostats, in the previous example) or a current problem. Perspective, individual, and social experience change the shape of the situation or problem, thereby creating a kaleidoscope of new stories and new meaning, a change in personal and contextual meaning regarding the original problem. Cunliffe (2002, 2008) furthered the notion of socially-constructed learning driving personal change and posited that adult learners create possibilities for change through the awareness and shifting how language is used which, in turn, shifts ways of knowing.

Thermostats, in this case, might take on new meaning as new language is used to describe their purpose—thermostat paradigm shifts.

Triple-loop learning occurs “when the essential principles on which the organization is founded come into discussion” and involves “the development of new principles, with which an organization can proceed to a subsequent phase” (Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992). Learning takes on nomadic movement toward new, creative, thinking and alternate conclusions.

Isaacs (1993) furthered the notion of forward movement with regard to organizations embracing new learning and suggested that “dialogue [is] a reflective process” (pp. 41–42). This acknowledges Argyris and Schön (1978) and Hawkins (1991) who suggested that triple-loop

30 learning opens the way for individuals to inquire beyond the question “why?”—which then cultivates insights into the nature of paradigm.

Double- and triple-loop learning, and the opportunities to open learners’ eyes to new ways of thinking and paradigm shifts, aligns well with Dewey’s (1938/1997) focus on social and interactive learning. Reflection, inquiry, personal change, and practicing new ways of knowing transform learners’ capacities toward alternate ways of being, learning, and seeing the world (D.

E. Fletcher & Watson, 2007; Roy, 2003; Semetsky, 2003).

Transformational Learning

Traditional learning over the years has been constructed within a hierarchical, teacher- driven, teacher-as-provider/learner-as-receiver-of-knowledge system set. The context of passive learning has situated learners within a space of digesting knowledge rather than exploring in an open space that encourages the investigation of possibilities driven by curiosity (Dewey,

1938/1997). Listening, sharing, and asking questions are core to the learner-to-learner practice of drawing from innate, creative resources to develop unique solutions.

Mezirow’s (1981, 1991, 1994) theory of transformational learning merges well with both

Dewey’s (1916) and Argyris and Schön’s (1978) learning theories. Mezirow’s transformational learning theory focuses mainly on the importance of learners’ reflection, making meaning (or sense-making), and adjusting action based on the grounding of one’s belief system that is developed from the meaning made through experience and application. The occurrence of transformational learning, according to Mezirow’s theory, emerges from a disorienting dilemma, a sudden or impactful life-altering experience that stops a learner, prompts them to reflect upon their assumptions regarding the experience and the surrounding experiences, and shifts their worldview and belief systems.

Corlett (2013) suggested that deepening sensitivity to those striking moments further individuals’ awareness of how they are talking, acting, and being. This awareness promotes change and becoming other. Riach (2009) proposed that [individuals’] “sticky moments” provide sites for reflexivity “where participants consciously consider themselves in relation to their own production of knowledge” (pp. 356, 360). This is a moment where individuals, encountering sticky moments, learn to learn.

Learning to learn. Mezirow (1991) suggested that for learning to occur, learners need to have opportunities to change their habitual tendency to remain with what they know and be open to making new meaning—to adapting and reorienting themselves—about the world around them.

This aligns well with Dewey’s focus on practice and habit mentioned earlier. Attachment to what is known and comfortable inhibits new learning. This is described by Deleuze and Guattari’s

(2002) lines of flight (or detachment from what is known) allowing for attachment to something other and new. When agents habituate learning movements of detaching (an action of deterritorializing) from what is known, coded, or fixed (or that which is territorialized), then taking flight and creating new thinking, and reattaching that new thinking to create new ideas

(reterritorializing), habits form towards learning to learn. The practice enables agents to establish skill in recognizing and working mutually through conflicts that arise when opposing ideas are in play. It becomes a process of working a new learning muscle through detaching, working through conflicting notions, reflecting upon, co-constructing, and reestablishing ideas.

Connecting with another person from a non-judgmental, authentic, and curious place enables a person to tap into what they already know or have experienced in the past, and serves as a means toward self-discovering new thinking. This practice is critical to how we learn to learn; it is a core principle of both double-loop and triple-loop learning, and of transformational

32 learning (Argyris, 1992, 1994; Mezirow, 1991). When we design solutions for ourselves by connecting and exploring options with another person, by drawing from what has worked well in the past to inform a current situation, or by reaching beyond what appears to be an obvious solution, we expand capacity for self-sufficiency and self-creativity. This practice is learning in its truest sense; we, as adults, are most apt to act and solve problems when we are in a place of designing our own solutions, where we are able to “make meaning” of our experiences

(Mezirow, 1991, p. 1), and where we can think critically regarding our contribution to the problem (Argyris, 1992, 1994). Mezirow (1991) further suggested:

Learning may be defined as the process of making a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of an experience, which guides subsequent understanding, appreciation, and action. What we perceive and fail to perceive and what we think and fail to think are powerfully influenced by habits of expectation that constitute our frame of reference, that is, a set of assumptions that structure the way we interpret our experiences. (p. 1)

For transformational learning to occur, adults need to have access to opportunities that enable them to shift their well-practiced and attached habits regarding what they think they know, towards opening themselves to making new sense about the world around them (Mezirow,

1991). These disorienting dilemmas (Mezirow, 1991) offer different frames of reference that shift our formerly attached belief systems and which present us with opportunities to stand back, reflect, and adjust to other ways of thinking and being. Learning, whether dramatic or fundamental, is transformational and produces change (Moore, 2005). Transformational learning, therefore, is concerned with reflectively transforming well-established beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and emotional reactions that form our meaning schemes, or transforming our meaning perspectives (sets of related meaning schemes) to loftier ones (Mezirow, 1991).

Our capacity to consider and adopt multiple perspectives expands with practice, either as dramatic or epochal, as well as through personal reflection and embracing new meaning. This

33 practice enables us to learn to learn new ways of thinking, being, creating, and engaging with others (Mezirow, 1991). Here, again, practice and forming learning habits prevail.

Reflection and learning. Reflection, and considering new perspectives, is core to developing other ways of being with regard to making new sense of our world. When learners exist in an environment that allows that to occur—connect to others, explore options, reflect, appreciate and explore multiplistic perspectives, and contribute to work based on their lived and newly-discovered experiences—they establish broader possibilities of learning, learning that exemplifies andragogy and life-long learning (Dewey, 1933; Mezirow, 1981).

Mezirow identified three types of reflection: content reflection (i.e., an examination of the content or description of a problem); process reflection (i.e., checking on the problem-solving strategies); and premise reflection (i.e., questioning the problem). Content reflection relates to inquiries about “what,” process reflection to “how,” and premise reflection to “why” (Wang &

Cranton, 2013, p. 62). These types of reflection focus mainly on how adults learn from external situations rather than what Confucius identified twenty-five centuries ago as the inner experience

(Wang & Cranton, 2013), tapping into emotional states that spark inquiry and deeper learning.

Inner experience (inner reflection) combined with learning from external situations (observation, skill-building, practice) develops whole-human lived experiences, ones that, when accessed, exercise what Mezirow called reflectivity (Jarvis, 1995; Wang & King, 2006), an exercise which delves further into the individual’s capacity to learn and re-learn through reflection and experience.

Jarvis (1987) described seven levels of reflectivity that focus on learners’ inner experiences and that cultivate deeper awareness and learning. Learners’ awareness—deepened and developed—provides access to how they can solve future problems. This includes:

• being aware of a particular opinion;

• meaning, behavior, or habit;

• an awareness of how one feels about what is being perceived, thought, or acted upon;

• an assessment of the current or future value of perception, thought, action or habit;

• developing an awareness about the significance of one’s perception, thought, action

or habit;

• an individual’s self-reflection which could lead to questioning whether good, bad or

suitable ideas were engaged for understanding or judgment; a recognition of one’s

habit toward accessing their intuition while making decisions on the basis of limited

data; and

• an awareness that the habit for intuitive decisions or for conceptual inadequacy lies in

a set of taken-for-granted cultural or psychological assumptions which explain

personal experience less satisfactorily than another perspective with more practical

criteria for seeing, thinking or acting.

Reflectivity, and its focus on combining inner and external experiences based on learners’ reflection, becomes a foundational element of the stories that agents tell regarding their lived experiences while learning and adapting. Through reflection, they can describe their experiences in ways that hold meaning for them and, by extension, those reflections become learning moments that inform their ongoing growth.

Transformational learning is both rational and analytical; a learner consciously takes action to reflect and readjust personal perspectives based on rational data. However, according to

Clark and Wilson (1991), the theory focuses on learner-centric learning rather than overall learning in organizations. The transformational nature of learning is primarily focused on an

35 individual’s context, shifting perspective, and action. It does not consider the collective context of change, reflection, creativity, and action. Clark and Wilson argued that there is a gap in

Mezirow’s theory with regard to “human plurality” (p. 88). They suggested, “Mezirow locates the process [of learning] in individual human agency without reference to a wider community”

(p. 88), a process that is developed within organizations described as learning organizations.

Learning Organizations

The concept of learning occurs in multiple domains. Schools, texts, methods, and organizations capture learning as a theme or outcome. Adaptive, relational, collaborative, self- organizing, and self-learning are concepts and behaviors contributing to how agents’ capacities to learn are enabled and developed, and thus describe what Senge (1994) referred to as learning organizations. Argyris (1999) suggested that “organizations learn through individuals acting as agents for them” (p. 123), while Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008) described a learning organization as an organization skilled at two things: first, creating, acquiring, interpreting, transferring, and retaining knowledge; and second, acting to modify its behavior to respond to new knowledge and insights. Individuals’ agency is paramount for learning in organizations to occur.

Organizations that embrace learning and instill opportunities where agents can learn to learn are comprised of governing variables such as “valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment to choices made in order to monitor the effectiveness of their implementation” (Argyris, 1999, p. 153). Ideas, in a learning organization, are freely tested; trust is sought and built, collaboration and inquiry are encouraged and exist, and risk-taking and mistake-making become integral to the process of learning to learn.

Senge (1990) defined learning organizations as:

Organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together . . . the basic rationale for such organizations is that in situations of rapid change only those that are flexible, adaptive and productive will excel. For this to happen, it is argued, organizations need to “discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels.” (pp. 3–4)

Senge’s (1990) vision for how individuals and teams ultimately learn was one of freedom for the collective to move, generate, and learn within an emergent system. He embraced the notion of learning, that is central to being human and, by practicing real learning, individuals and organizations are able to recreate themselves as they engage in their learning. Organizational leaders who are committed to building learning organizations create the space and enable capacity for collectives to collaborate, grow both individually and collectively, and generate new ideas together. They enable an environment that cultivates personal and collective change.

Senge’s (1990) theory moved beyond the notion of adaptive learning. He further informed the concept of adaptive learning by joining it with “generative learning” (p. 14), the capacity to create and generate new ways of working and thinking. This type of learning requires the space and the means to allow learners to reflect, move and collaborate freely, test their experiences, produce and share knowledge and to connect their learning by learning to learn together, a practice that is concerned with a learning movement that seeks new ground for new thinking. Learning moves nomadically within this type of environment.

Organization learning. As mentioned earlier, learning occurs when individuals work in environments that provide space and acceptance for reflection, dialogue, collaboration, adapting, and problem solving (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Dewey, 1938/1997; Mezirow, 1991, 1994; Senge,

1994). Some scholars suggest that the term organization learning is an oxymoron (e.g., Weick &

Westley, 1996). The etymological root of the word organization, according to Weick and

Westley (1996) is “to forget and reduce variety . . . [whereas] “to learn is to disorganize and increase variety” (p. 440). This notion is also seen by Dewey (1938/1997), Mezirow (1991), and

Senge (1990, 1994).

The tension between organize and disorganize, and how they disable or enable learners to learn, may stand in the way of how leaders understand and promote what learning in their organizations means to the learners and to the intended outcome. Here is where the opportunity exists—to focus not merely on the organization of or for learning, but to expand the notion of learning to learn within organizations.

Learning to learn in organizations. There is a problem about finitely defining a learning organization. If learning organizations possess the capacity to (un)learn and relearn in an agile way, then finite and bureaucratic structures would stand in the way of that movement of learning. Learning organizations would not look the same from one organization to the next as each one is made up of different people, diverse processes, changing technologies, and varying outcomes. The diverse organizational landscapes offer opportunities to learn with every problem presented.

Learning occurs while working; learning is not prescriptive or necessarily repeatable.

Learning is inherent to the unique problems that exist within each organization at the moments they present themselves (Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992), thereby providing repeated opportunities for learning to learn. Learning to learn, as practiced and applied in learning organizations, is collectively built by habit, inquiry, and a courage for personal change.

Swieringa and Wierdsma (1992) argued:

Learning in a learning organization is directed towards developing the potential for learning to learn: meta-learning. The basis for this potential is self-knowledge, in particular knowledge about how and why you are learning and wish to learn . . . this demands collective potential, the courage and the will to look at yourself in an orderly

manner, which is different than being self-absorbed. It involves detached observation and analysis of your own collective functioning, which requires the art of knowing how to stand outside yourself. (p.78)

Chia (1999) expanded the concept of change and learning. Although certain boundary functions and processes may be necessary to uphold the overall structure of an organization, if organizations hold fast to fixed systems and processes as safe or comforting handles that get in the way of agile work, learning, change, and creativity is stymied. Chia (1999) suggested:

Typologies, taxonomies and classification schemas are convenient but essentially reductionistic methods for abstracting, fixing and labeling what is an intrinsically changing, fluxing and transforming social reality. Of course, they serve as convenient handles for identifying the different types of organizational change processes observed, but they do not get at the heart of the phenomenon of change itself. (p. 210)

Edmondson (2008) further contrasted this notion by comparing organizations that leaned upon organizational execution (measured after the fact) with organizations that focused on learning through execution, or execution-through-learning. Edmondson (2008) claimed:

Organizations that focus on execution-as-learning use the best knowledge obtainable (which is understood to be a moving target) to inform the design of specific process guidelines. They enable their employees to collaborate by making information available when and where it’s needed. They routinely capture process data to discover how work is really being done. Finally, they study these data in an effort to find ways to improve. These four practices form the basis of a learning infrastructure that runs through the fabric of the organization, making continual learning part of business as usual. (p. 62)

Edmondson’s (2008) description highlights the flexibility and variety of learning that exists within a learning organization. Swieringa and Wierdsma (1992) continued suggesting that learning organizations practice learning by doing and learning as a catalyst for change; they are focused on collective and collaborative learning. Learning is accomplished consciously; it is through questioning and consensus-building about how problems should be solved not “what the world should ideally look like” (p. 76). Learning is formed multilaterally by embracing the diversity across its collective; it honors paradox and the unknown and it habitually practices learning to learn.

Broad flexibility in how learners learn, where and how decisions are made, and embracing change as a vital element of ongoing learning are markers of a learning organization.

The paradoxical interchange that occurs promotes unlearning, an essential element of growth and changed perspectives.

Unlearning in organizations. Becker (2005) argued: “Although much has been written about the notion of unlearning, there is a genuine lack of empirical studies in the area of unlearning” (p. 659). The lack of scholarly investigation of unlearning lends itself to the assertion that it is a topic within learning literature to be explored and researched further. The term, however, even in its lack of scholarly wealth, is worthy of mention when exploring learning in organizations. Unlearning is defined in multiple ways. Table 2.1. presents several scholars’ definitions of unlearning.

Table 2.1.

Definitions of Unlearning

SOURCE DEFINITION Hedberg (1981, p. 3) Knowledge grows, and simultaneously it becomes obsolete as reality changes. Understanding involves both learning new knowledge and discarding obsolete and misleading knowledge. Newstrom (1983, p. 36) The process of reducing or eliminating preexisting knowledge or habits that would otherwise represent formidable barriers to new learning Prahalad & Bettis (1986, p. 498) The process by which firms eliminate old logics and behaviours and make room for new ones Starbuck (1996, p. 727) A process that shows people they should no longer rely on their current beliefs and methods

Rhizomatic Learning

Rhizome philosophy and its principles were adapted by philosophers Gilles Deleuze and

Félix Guattari (2002) as a revolutionary methodology for thinking. They proffered rhizome

40 theory to describe that which allows for non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. In an educational or organizational environment, this non- hierarchical data representation and interpretation exists only within an environment where people have the space, agency, and ability to step into and out of a conversation, learning opportunity, or project at the moment where they can contribute or lead based upon their intellect, knowledge, energy, or creative spark.

Deleuze and Guattari (2002) further defined characteristics that are inherent within an environment considered to be rhizomatic. Connection, heterogeneity, multiplicity, asignifying rupture, and cartography, all point to how thought, learning, and interpretation thrives when given space to unfold nomadically and generatively, rather than being locked in a fixed, coded, or striated process or space. Rhizome philosophy and its principles offer a way to consider thinking differently about how individuals effectively learn and exchange ideas, and is concerned with environments and opportunities for open and creative learning and interchange to occur.

Rhizome philosophy has influenced a rich community of traditional educators over the last decade, many of whom have embraced a way of teaching and learning called rhizomatic learning (RL; Cormier, 2011; Reilly, 2009, 2011a, 2011b, 2013). Learning space is open and welcoming to new ideas; learners exercise agency in their learning through dialogue, curiosity, and co-construction. Educators’ roles become ones of guides or facilitators in exploration; they create opportunities and design scaffolding where learning, making mistakes, enabling new learning based on those mistakes, and collective experience thrives through co-construction between both learner and learner, and learner and educator. Cormier (2008) argued:

In the rhizomatic view, knowledge can only be negotiated, and the contextual, collaborative learning experience shared by constructivist and connectivist pedagogies is a social as well as a personal knowledge-creation process with mutable goals and constantly negotiated premises. The rhizome metaphor, which represents a critical leap in

coping with the loss of a canon against which to compare, judge, and value knowledge, may be particularly apt as a model for disciplines on the bleeding edge where the canon is fluid and knowledge is a moving target. (p. 3)

Rhizomatic learning in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). An example of developing co-constructed learning to facilitate learner and community growth is demonstrated in how RL has influenced collective and diverse thought and knowledge creation within the development of the ASEAN (Lian & Pineda, 2014). ASEAN is a regional organization created in 1967, “to promote active collaboration on matters of common interest”

(Association of Southeast Asian Nations, n.d., para. 4). It currently has nine nation members.

The problem to solve within the ASEAN community was how to develop synergy and connectedness across the nations and communities. Diversity was and continues to be paramount, as the community assimilated, and the need became clear to connect individuals in learning, decision-making, and appreciation of multiple perspectives. This initiative was developed while technology out-paced human capacity to remain fully current and connected.

The transformation provided the opportunity to enrich how people learn and build relationships in new ways. A departure from traditional learning models (school-bound, institutional, and striated systems) gave way toward open, boundary-spanning, and relational interchange using social networking and dynamic, research-driven processes. Lian and Pineda (2014) argued:

If we take account of the dynamic conditions and great diversity of the ASEAN group of nations, there is clearly a significant need to build skills and competencies for the near future even though the current (quasi-) exponential rate of technological change that we are experiencing makes it impossible to predict the kinds of job skills and other life skills congruent with that short-term future. What is relevant in this dynamic context is the necessity to develop strong personal learning competencies and relational mindsets in the ASEAN population. (p. 4)

Learning competencies and relational mindsets were developing in ASEAN society in an organic way and are essentially cultural and specific to the region. Consequently, ASEAN educators were presented with the unique opportunity to develop flexible, inter-disciplinary, and

42 adaptable teaching and learning systems that could address the vast variety of learning issues that are not dissimilar to the issues that any global or boundary-spanning, complex organization encounters (Yu, 2006; Yu & Lee, 2008), generated by the demands of regional diversity. Lian

(2011) argued:

Despite long-standing academic categorisations (as exemplified by the creation of disciplines or departments which act as bastions of power for affinity groups), the educational world is beginning to realise/accept that the universe is essentially interdisciplinary and that traditional artificial academic boundaries and categorisations are weakening so as to reflect more accurately the realities of a world with no natural boundaries. (p. 6)

This reality provides learning professionals with a similar opportunity to consider how boundary-less learning may expand learning and relationships, giving power to the agent to gain knowledge at the right time and place for them, and to enable that learning to unfold in a rhizomatic, change-creating way. Lian (2011) referred to this as “evolutionary rather than revolutionary, as well as organic in essence as [the learning becomes] a product of slow change”

(p. 11), and “a centrality of individualised meaning-making in the learning process” (p. 14).

RL, as discussed, is not locked within rubric-driven curricula; rubrics and structures exist as guideposts, not as walls blocking emergent thinking. Learning becomes self-directed, co- created, and relevant to the learners when they move beyond striated spaces previously dictated by rules or coded regiments. Agency is nurtured and expected; emergent thinking is honored, emulating a nomad’s venture—movement, discovery, and sought-after places offering potential for new perspectives (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002; Kramer, 2013; Reilly, 2009, 2011a, 2011b) and new environments that build habits toward lifelong learning within organizations (Dewey, 1933).

Rhizomatic principles, when practiced in learning environments, provide a means for agents to learn from and with each other through dialogue and sharing of lived experiences, all within the time and space that makes sense for the individual, team, or project. Learning occurs

43 within a sphere of continual movement; in situ discovery and reflection feeds further learning.

Due to the “and . . . and . . . and” sense of dwelling in questions, dwelling in the middle,

(Deleuze & Guattari, 2002), and seeking to learn what emerges, agents’ collective work mirrors flow and movement as new questions are asked and other perspectives are sought. Much like

Heraclitus’ river analogy where “everything flows . . . it is impossible to step into the same river twice” (Ademollo, 2011, p. 203), contributions are made at the time that they are most needed and individuals embrace new members and their perspectives openly. The flow of learning changes with each perspective changing its course.

Relationships also take the form of flow and engagement at the time and place that is needed. Through sharing, connecting, appreciation of multiple perspectives, and the freedom to take flight with new ideas, unique insights emerge. Individuals’ unique expressions become a lens to new and creative learning in organizations. It is from the originating constructs of rhizome philosophy and RL that I have coined this learning concept of Rhizomatic Learning in

Organizations (RLO).

From Rhizomatic Learning to Rhizomatic Learning in Organizations

When rhizomatic principles are applied within the context of learning in organizations and adapting, there emerge new possibilities of thinking about how agents build relationships, make decisions, and innovate. Creativity and work become emergent. New opportunities for multiplistic ways of being and thinking become possible and, in turn, disrupt fixed, striated practices often embedded within organizational cultures.

The proposition framed by my research question is based partly upon logically extending

RL, which has emerged as an innovative way to teach and learn within a traditional education setting. The framework complements, yet extends beyond, legacy learning theory and scholarship; it bears promise in broadening our thinking about how agents can learn and adapt in

44 networked, collaborative, and transformative ways within organizational structures. It is from this broadening and the reach to understand learning and adapting in organizations, within the context of rhizome principles, that the new concept emerges of RLO. By extending the notion of

RL and how it has been applied and practiced within traditional educational settings, there is opportunity to further its concept and practice within a learning organizations context. RLO allows us to examine new ways to reimagine how learning occurs within organizations (implicit) and how agents become other (explicit) while learning together.

An RLO framework expands current learning in organizations and adapting theory in that it reimagines a continuous, fluid movement of co-constructing new knowledge and learning.

Learning, in this manner, is never fixed or grounded; it remains in the middle of things, open to new possibilities with each learner demonstrating personal agency while creating with another.

The RLO conceptualization helps to think of agents who work and learn together, as what Reilly

(2013) called, “a sea of ‘middles’ continuously formed and reformed by alliances determined by needs, interests, whim, playfulness, directions, questions, redirections, assessments, errors, and commitments” (para. 2). Unlike many fixed or coded organizational learning systems, an RLO space is based on joining and rejoining. This fluidity (dwelling in the middle of things) co-exists well within complex organizations that are in continuous movement and connection, organizations that flourish on multiplistic and heterogeneous exchanges and innovation.

As conceptualized, RLO overlaps with the learning and organization theories and principles described earlier, sharing similar traits and descriptions. Yet RLO diverges into an expanded view of learning and adapting. RLO principles—which closely align with rhizome philosophy principles—when applied and practiced, have the potential to liberate learning and adapting beyond the structure of power and stasis that earlier-presented learning and

45 organizational stories possess. Organizations that embrace RLO principles with regard to how agency is given to learn and adapt, provide a foundation for fluid interaction, interconnection, co-creation, and discovery beyond hierarchical positionality or individual ego, thereby enabling development of lifelong learning.

Kang (2007) suggested that lifelong learning thrives only in an environment that allows such learning to be in perpetual motion. Like a sphere of collective learning activity, learning generation is nourished by exposure to heterogeneous and multiplistic thought, dialogue, connection, and exploration with others. According to Kang, learning-in-motion depicts rhizoactivity, which depends on learners engaging wholly and fully in their learning, not merely absorbing static information shared in the moment, but rather engaging in ways that require choice-making, context-consideration, and reflection. Learning becomes an activity that draws on mind, body, and emotion. Kang (2007) argued, “Rhizoactivity involves emotion, intuition, spirituality, bodily feeling, as well as rationality on which our decision making inevitably rests. It also involves a historical dimension, since decision making is always related to past choices”

(p. 217). He suggested that, “rhizoactivity sprouts and pops up at any place in any time of one’s life to make connections to whatever is available. It is not a linear activity. It opens itself to any possibility. There is no beginning or ending” (Kang, 2007, p. 216). This type of learning mirrors

Deleuze and Guattari’s (2002) concept of rhizome growth, always dwelling in the middle and seeking the wisdom of the collective. Rhizoactivity engages questions regarding how learning activities shape one's life and its context, thereby serving as a window to the task of lifelong, collective, unstriated learning.

Yu and Lee (2008) referred to the notion of collective, ongoing learning as rhizomatic networks (RNs). RNs, as they described them, are:

[b]ased on the ideal of collective learning and acting of social participants. Groups of people share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about “desire”, and go after a common pursuit of solution through the process of problematization and subjectivization. (Yu & Lee, p. 258)

According to Yu and Lee (2008), RNs exist in constant motion, involving decision- making within a social practice of learning and acting. Shared vision, desire, belief, and knowledge, when practiced voluntarily within an environment of autonomy in setting goals and facilitating learning and outcomes, supports rhizomatic principles of connection, multiplicity, heterogeneity, and asignifying rupture. These principles also mirror and expand upon principles within learning theories previously mentioned, as well as describe learning in relational and social constructs.

Rhizoactivity and RNs bear similarity to nomads’ journeys (Kramer, 2013). Movement, exploration, emergence, and adapting to new territory are inherently conceptualized in RLO.

Relational and nomadic learning are intrinsic in RLO, as well as the Deleuzian idea of becoming- other, an aspect of the personal change that occurs when new perspectives are considered and new territories of knowing are ventured.

By combining the previously mentioned metaphorical overlays with Deleuze and

Guattari’s philosophical work (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002), we can model RLO against those same principles in order to see how they are demonstrated within an organization that embraces the following principles of RLO and connection, RLO and heterogeneity, RLO and multiplicity,

RLO and asignifying rupture(s), and RLO and cartography.

RLO and connection. Organizations that embrace RLO are potentially ones that effectively connect creativity, thought, work output, and results to all that is evident within the organizations, thereby exhibiting Deleuze and Guattari’s (2002) trait of linking different thoughts. Leaders, in their capacity to develop others, are always looking for ways to create

47 sense-making amongst their employees, and to help others realize how their contributions are valued, and how their work enriches all other work within the organization. Agents who embrace connection are ever vigilant to make known how each contribution connects to other points in the system or work stream. An example of such a connection would be connecting a creative thought from one project to another project in another part of the organization that is outside the immediate function.

RLO and heterogeneity. A work stream does not limit any particular social contribution; a homogeneous mindset actually stands in the way of broadening possibilities or innovation. For example, a leader who supports learning in a rhizomatic way and manages a group of engineers that is developing a specialized pharmaceutical lubricant, would support inviting a marketing person to meet with his or her team in order to facilitate learning further about the value their work delivers to end customers. Such support from the leader (and to the extent that the collective practices the RLO principle of heterogeneity) can enable an environment where all agents will make such links without needing permission to do so, and further widen the understanding and appreciation of differences and perspectives that span the two organizations.

RLO and multiplicity. A rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle and in motion. As such, organizations that embrace RLO may be more likely to continually nourish and grow people and ideas in ways that enable the collective to learn and adapt using their whole beings—technical experiences, social orientations, community positions, and more— while contributing to their work. Agents can offer ideas at any point, contribute technical expertise based on their talent, and exit and travel to another project that would benefit from their

48 knowledge. The key is that RLO—non-hierarchical and position-neutral—can serve the work by enabling those entry-and-exit points freely, in the spirit of new, creative thought.

An example of multiplicity is where an internal consultant works within one part of the organization, imparts the knowledge that he or she has that might be needed at that particular time and place. Once the project is completed, the internal consultant moves to another part of the organization that requires his or her skill. The knowledge that was created in the first project remains grounded in that part of the organization and continues to seed new knowledge for or from other projects. This way of extending knowledge to new projects or areas within the organization demonstrates the concept of Deleuze and Guattari’s (2002) intermezzo—always being in the middle with regard to thinking and creating new ideas and concepts.

RLO and asignifying rupture(s). The rhizome naturally and resiliently finds its way around boundaries or barriers as it continues to grow. Even when it encounters a wall, the rhizome will creep up or around it to find a way to continue or, if it breaks, will take root in another place. Resilience is constant, dramatic, and dynamic. In an RLO organization, leaders and agents would ensure that there is a high level of resiliency within the organization by promoting independent, empowered decision-making, rewarding high levels of collaboration, and providing varied work experiences—and do so in ways that allow for change, adaptation, and new directions when needed, even if doing so represents a significant departure from the ways things have always been done.

An example of asignifying rupture is in the story of how Post-it notes were originally developed (Post-it, n.d.). A scientist, tasked with developing a super-adherent adhesive, discovered, after testing, that he had actually developed a low-tack, pressure-sensitive adhesive, one that, when pulled away from the surface, did not leave residue. The development became a

49 solution for a problem that no one knew they had, and a departure from the original intent. The rest is history; the Post-it brand has become a go-to office staple in organizations around the world.

RLO and cartography. Given that each interaction has the ability to change some or all of the other interactions in a system, an RLO organization would require the flexibility to accommodate those changes, to, as it were, change the system’s map. An organization that exhibits such cartographic qualities would be led by those who are open to new ideas, develop and reward resiliency, and expect innovation beyond a hierarchical context. A cartographical organization is one that enables thought, ideas, and creativity to emerge freely and fluidly among agents. Cartography also suggests mapping and remapping based on the patterns of thought that emerges, a sense of setting down idea-anchors and then moving in another direction to see where that idea moves, then reimaging that idea into a new concept, and then entering into a different entry-point within the organization’s map. By their very nature, the entries and re-entries of new ideas shift thinking, sensemaking, and decision-making (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005).

Agents are changed; overall sensemaking shifts through the dynamic exercise of mapping. An example is pure, non-judgmental brainstorming, which demands for ideas to travel and take flight, all within the context of an organization whose value system embraces free and open thought and creativity. The brainstorming map takes on a different shape or pattern as ideas are connected and re-connected, connected and re-connected.

Possibilities of Rhizomatic Learning in Organizations

Determining whether the above principles exist in organizations is, in part, the purpose of this research. If so, RLO provides significant opportunity for extending current theories of learning in organizations. Dewey (1916), Agyris and Schön (1978), Mezirow (1991), and Senge

(1990, 1994) espoused theories and frameworks with regard to how individuals learn and how

50 learning is optimally achieved through collaboration, habit changes, open space, and making meaning. Rhizome philosophy, and by extension, RLO, potentially extends learning into new realms, ones that reimagine how individuals learn in a nomadic, ever-moving, and networked way. RLO frees learners to experience becoming other (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002; Deleuze &

Parnet, 2002). Learners, and the environments within which they exchange, are in continuous movement of change by being open to new perspectives (connection and heterogeneity), and co- constructing and grounding new knowledge (cartography and asignifying rupture). This creative and nomadic way of being situates RLO as complementary to legacy learning and adapting scholarship. The following sections describe those complementary concepts.

Lines of flight. A rhizomatic principle that is paramount to assimilating rhizomatic principled learning is that of asignifying rupture (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002). Asignifying rupture is a concept that fundamentally shifts how learning flourishes when given the freedom to depart from exploitation of standards that often immobilizes learning and, alternatively, is given space to co-create and reestablish new thinking. Asignifying rupture perpetuates “yes . . . and . . . and .

. . and” thinking, rather than the “yes . . . but” thinking often found in hierarchical, fixed systems.

It is from this place of “yes . . . and” that the habit of possibility is practiced and thrives and, with freedom to dwell within a space of possibility, unleashes new ways of being and learning. It is a space where thinking and standards that are established within an organization (territorialized) are given flight (deterritorialized) to find uncharted territory where new standards or other ways of thinking and doing can be created, and then re-established (reterritorialized) back within the organization.

Deleuze and Guattari (2002) describe this phenomenon of territorializeàdeterritorializeàreterritorializeàterritorialize flow as lines of flight. When agents

51 are free to exercise agency in taking fixed territorialized processes and thoughts, detach them— deterritorializing—create new ideas and processes, and then return to their work making a new standard— reterritorializing—the ongoing practice allows for more lines of flight. One might visualize this as a perpetual flight dance that occurs when agents work in an environment that is open to learning and to expression of, and adaptability to, multiplistic ideas and perspectives.

This mode of learning is what Kang (2007) meant by rhizoactivity, as noted above. Kang (2007) suggested: “Rhizoactivity sprouts and pops up at any place in any time of one’s life to make connections to whatever is available. It is not a linear activity. It opens itself to any possibility.

There is no beginning or ending” (p. 216). Usher and Edwards (2007) described this practice as multi-directionality:

The multi-directionality of the ‘and’ and its rhizomatic movement point to a range of further connections, additions, that need consideration, as the boundedness of teaching and learning practices becomes unsustainable once lifelong learning is taken on a line of flight that unsticks it from effective technique. (p. 163)

When educational or organizational entities block the natural inclination to seek new ideas and create new thought, learning—real, lines of flight movement—does not or cannot exist.

Real learning is an action of becoming something other than what was—non-linear, ever- moving, nomadic, and creative (Kramer, 2013). This nomadic, creative state thrives when it exists within a space that provides freedom to develop beyond that which has been deemed as known and definitive knowledge.

Becoming and being. Deleuze and Guattari (2002) referred to the juxtaposition of becoming and being as the crux of generative thoughts attaching themselves to other thoughts to become something new (p. 9). This aligns with lifelong learning, a learning flow with lines of flight movement, all occurring while nurturing the relationships with whom one engages.

Deepening our capacity to step away from what we know—being—and opening ourselves to trying new ways of exploring possibility with others enables us to change both ourselves and others—becoming—and to deepen our capacity to thrive in a changing environment. Biehl and Locke (2010) suggested:

The question, rather, lies in our receptivity to others, in what kinds of evidence we assemble and use—the voices to which we listen and the experiences we account for— and in how we craft our explanations: whether our analytics remain attuned to the intricacy, openness, and unpredictability of individual and collective lives. Just as medical know-how, international political dynamics, and social realities change, so too are people’s lives (biological and political) in flux. (p. 318)

Learning to learn: adapting and sustaining. Learning rhizomatically creates opportunities for learning to occur in connected, cartographic, and heterogeneous ways as agents work together. Rhizomatic-principled learning (and, by extension, adapting) enables agents to learn and engage within messy, unfixed spaces of ambiguity and exploration. They are given the opportunity to deepen their capacity for change, become more agile in their work and relationships, and learn to learn. This enables leaders to lead differently, agents to learn and work together differently, and to collectively exercise agency, thereby expanding capacity to adapt to new and untested challenges.

The benefits of learning to learn extend beyond what organizations often measure: performance, efficiency, or completing and delivering a product. Rhizomatic-principled experiences situate agents where they can discover new meaning for themselves through dialogue with others and by embarking on new relationships. Their learning reaches beyond the common head-knowledge to a deeper place of self- and other-knowledge. Their appreciation for other perspectives deepens. They become less ego-driven and invoke more curiosity as they interact with others. New meanings enrich their experiences. Activities that occur while they learn to learn enable new meanings and new ways of seeing themselves, each other, and their

53 work. They access a deeper part of themselves as they engage in reflection, develop comfort with the unknown, and consider limitless possibility.

These are critical aspects of adult learning; rhizomatic-principled learning brings us beyond the superficial place of learning to which we have grown accustomed and opens us to new spaces where we experience ourselves and others differently. It fundamentally changes us and changes those with whom we interact. Dirkx (1997) saw this self- and other-change phenomenon as “nurturing [the] soul in adult learning” (p. 79). Dirkx (1997) described it as, “an idea centuries old reemerging in this age of information, giving voice in a deep and powerful way to imaginative and poetic expressions of self and the world” (p. 80).

Rhizomatic practices become sustainable as new, adaptive behaviors are learned, practiced, and habits are formed. Movement away from well-established, comfortable habits of learning opens opportunities to explore alternative perspectives through dialogue with others, asking questions, and considering new possibilities. While engaging in this new way of being, awareness about how leaders and learners change become explicit. New learning muscle develops; going back to the old ways of command-and-control or exploitation of how-we’ve- always-done-it becomes uncomfortable (Holmqvist, 2003). Expectations shift; adaptive, nimble, and curious behaviors grow.

RLO principles in action. Today’s organizations are highly complex and involve activities themselves complex enough to require the freedom for individuals and groups to adapt to chaotic, discontinuous change. RLO calls for individuals to develop exactly the skills needed to function effectively in these environments: mindfulness and adaptability, broadened relationships, deepened curiosity and self- and social-awareness, and the capacity to discover new ways of learning and being even while working in ambiguity (Boyatzis, 2006; Lewin &

Regine, 2000; Scapp, 2006; Sinclair, 2007; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Vaill, 1996). This type of learning requires developing agility within deterritorialized, unstriated, and unfixed spaces. It calls for organizational leaders to create space for boundary-spanning engagement (Ernst &

Chrobot-Mason, 2011).

Kotter (2012) demonstrated the benefit of enabling an organization to increase agility to learn through a case study that focused on a business-to-business technology firm that was potentially losing market share due mainly to its legacy hierarchical structure and rigid business processes. The leader recognized the potential to gain market share by instilling changes in how the organization was structured. These changes recognized and rewarded employees’ expertise and freed up employees to take the lead on the processes they knew best. The organization developed a guiding coalition (GC) team that was empowered to create, innovate, engage in conversations, and develop initiatives in service of increasing business opportunities. The GC worked in a networked, rhizomatic way. They worked cross-professionally, developed relationships, learned who was best able to perform tasks, and collaborated in a connected, cartographic, and heterogeneous way. The company, through the GC’s connected work, was able to break through conventional, hierarchical organizational barriers to quickly develop new initiatives that increased market share. Kotter (2012) argued, “In the absence of bureaucratic layers, command-and-control prohibitions, and Six Sigma processes, this type of network permits a level of individualism, creativity, and innovation that not even the least bureaucratic hierarchy can provide” (p. 7).

Kotter’s (2012) system is an example of an organization adapting, working, and learning rhizomatically—learning to learn—in that it provides an open, adaptable environment for connected, heterogeneous, and multiplistic contribution, and is designed to enable agents to

55 cartographically enter and depart at the most appropriate time throughout a project. This nimble, linear, nomadic, and relational nature of working develops capacity for adapting to change and new possibilities.

The organization’s teams discovered and practiced a way of being that moved them beyond a fixed system into a rhizomatically creative place that was open and highly productive.

Learning from experiencing newness within an environment that is unfixed and open for discovery provides opportunity to adapt in ways that are contrary to how we have learned or led in the past.

Moving from striated systems to uncluttered space. Aspects of adult learning that include rhizomatic-principled learning and adapting brings agents beyond a superficial place of learning, one to which most of us have grown accustomed, and opens us to new spaces where we experience ourselves (and others) differently. The very nature of exercising those principles changes us and those with whom we interact. It shifts how we feel, see, and interact with the world around us. It moves us into unstriated space where lines of flight are far more likely to occur.

When referring to lines of flight—which grow from unstriated spaces—for example, as enabling discovery and creativity, it is not without recognition that boundaries or guidance is required to form a semblance of order that frames the collective within a shared vision or goal.

Free, open, unstriated space is not necessarily boundary-less. Vision, goals, and context remain essential for organizations to preserve a container in which rhizomatic learning can occur.

It is necessary for organizations to maintain balance to facilitate opportunity, agency, and productive outcome. Ernst and Chrobot-Mason (2011) supported this notion by suggesting a shift

“from a functional to process-driven organization . . . identif[ying] ‘learning’ as a critical

56 organization-wide competency” (p. 120). Ensuring that organizational goals are explicit, providing contextual grounding for organizational goals and roles, nurturing a culture of reflection and curiosity, and providing opportunities for “real-time learning (and dialogue) across boundaries of functional experiences and expertise” creates an environment for lines of flight to be freely in play (Ernst & Chrobot-Mason, 2011, p. 120).

Relational learning. Learning, as described earlier, is a relational construct (J. K.

Fletcher, 2012; Roberts, 2012; Uhl-Bien, 2006) and is a vital practice within RLO. Relational learning fundamentally rests on the notion that no one person, leader or follower, holds the ultimate answer to questions that are posed within the relationship. Reciprocal interchange is necessary to the well-being of organizational relationships and to strengthening learning networks developed by way of those interchanges. Van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De

Cremer, and Hogg (2004) described this as “relational self-construal, or the extended sense of self . . . [that] renders mutual benefit and mutual interest more salient, and motivates the individual to take the other’s interest to heart” (p. 828).

A sense of identity—both of the organization and of the individuals who work within it—is heightened through the relationships made. Awareness of strengths, weaknesses, similarities, differences, and individual and collective added-value to the organization is increased as agents deepen their relationships through self-reflection and collaboration, which, thereby, facilitates ongoing growth and learning (Roberts, 2012). J. K. Fletcher (2012) suggested that it is through these relational connections that occur—within a social context that dwells within organizational relationships—where human growth and development thrive. Her argument juxtaposes patriarchal power dynamics that are often in play within organizational constructs. The creative strength that is built in relational leadership practices overcomes

57 dependent, needy, deficit-focused, fixed mindsets (Dweck, 2006) that are evident in hierarchical, power-at-the-top organizations (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Earlier, Vaill

(1996) made a similar point, suggesting that leaders who are committed to sharing both technical and adaptive organizational sense-making skills through relationships, are leaders who are committed to life-long learning and, in turn, instill those principles across teams with which they collaborate.

Nomadic learning. Gilles Deleuze preferred to stay in one place (Colebrook, 2002); he did not care for physical travel, yet, in his writing and conceptualizing, he was a nomad whose philosophical journeying led him to explore philosophical territories, deterritorializing them, and creating new concepts. By adopting the rhizomatic principles that Deleuze and Guattari (2002) developed within everyday work, organizational agents exercise consistency in seeking new ways of being, learning, and adapting. When agents pose questions to guide their work, they develop a practice of quality, efficiency, relationship-building, and new knowledge, which cultivates deeper capacity to anticipate, adapt to, and embrace change. Capacities to adapt and embrace change are developed when agents can break free from a top-heavy management model and are able to collaborate and learn nomadically (Kramer, 2013), a learning practice that includes “change, flexibility, and creativity in order to be ready for the ever-changing future”

(Kramer, 2013, p. 152).

As mentioned earlier, our traditional learning practices have been antithetical to this approach: they have focused on fixed and striated systems which stand in the way of motivating learners to seek alternative perspectives and possibilities. This has shifted as educational models expand into more open, connected, and relational methods. Moravec (2013b) suggested:

Motivation to learn, for example, is often assumed to necessitate external pressure—if we are not told what to learn, it is assumed we will not learn anything at all. Democratic

education and unlearning movements that saw their prominence rise in the 1960s and 1970s challenged this. But, now, the context has changed. Perhaps it is worth giving these ideas (among others) another look, and support the emergence of a diverse ecology of education options to best support each learner to find his or her own way. Knowmadic work is, after all, the expression of personal knowledge, skills, and value. (p. 81)

New ways of being and learning within systems described as learning organizations are in constant motion, like a nomad’s journey, picking up stakes and driving toward the next possibility; they do not “creakily lurch from one stable state to the next as the world around them changes . . . [they are] constantly learning” (Vaill, 1996, pp. 52–53). This nomadic behavior shifts thinking from change and learning as an adaptable pursuit, to change and learning as a creative pursuit (Moravec, 2013a, 2013b; Noriega, Heppell, Segovia-Bonet, & Heppell, 2013).

Given the lifestyles of desert nomads, they would die of starvation and thirst if they did not adapt to their environment. The desert’s limitation of vegetation and water presents an environment that forces movement to new ground. Nomads’ ways of thriving are to seek out their next living environment where they can find food, water, and sustenance for their livestock.

They move to learn; they learn to move. Nomads are nimble and agile with regard to their belongings, surroundings, and how to sustain life. They can swiftly pull up stakes and travel to new, often unpredictable and unknowable territories. Holding onto any established territory places the nomad in danger of running out of resources. A fixed mindset regarding attachment to location can equal death. Comfort with their current situation can alter their future in detrimental ways. Their lives and livelihood depend on considering alternate paths and establishing new territories. They thrive because of their growth mindsets in learning as they move; they embrace perpetual change (Dweck, 2006).

Moravec (2008) further described the concept of nomadic learning by naming those who embrace it as knowmads, learners who embody nomadic journeying as they seek new learning and build new knowledge. Moravec (2008) defined a knowmad:

[A] knowledge worker—that is, a creative, imaginative, and innovative person who can work with almost anybody, anytime, and anywhere. Industrial society is giving way to knowledge and innovation work. Whereas industrialization required people to settle in one place to perform a very specific role or function, the jobs associated with knowledge and information workers have become much less specific in regard to task and place. Moreover, technologies allow for these new paradigm workers to work either at a specific place, virtually, or any blended combination. Knowmads can instantly reconfigure and recontextualize their work environments, and greater mobility is creating new opportunities. (para. 2)

The practice of nomadic learning and the ways of being that knowmads possess engenders change; learners who are open to imagining learning as a journey full of discovery and surprise are themselves changed through this process of learning.

Becoming other. Relational and nomadic learning depend on the capacity of organizational learners to possess trust within the organization and to have the freedom to take flight on new ideas and re-establish new, foundational learning as a creative pursuit. Nomadic learning is concerned with developing a habit of uprooting deeply held historical beliefs regarding systems, processes, or learning to free up creative thinking and reestablishing new learning (Moravec, 2008, 2013a, 2013b). Lines of flight and becoming other—two concepts that are inherent to learning rhizomatically—are in constant motion and depend on developing relationships across the collective (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002; Reilly, 2009, 2011b). Developed relationships drive capacity to learn and contribute rhizomatically, that is, cartographically, multiplistically, and heterogeneously: “Focusing on communication as the medium in which all social constructions of [learning] and leadership are continuously created and changed”

(Uhl-Bien, 2006, p. 665).

Most recently, leader development has shifted focus from human capital

—the leader-follower model—toward a focus on social capital, the value of the connections between people. Social capital emphasizes the relational aspects and practices of leading. It

60 increases inclusion across the collective and within interconnected organizational systems (Day,

Harrison, & Halpin, 2008; Riggio, 2008; Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Collaboration (and the freedom to collaborate) and inclusion are fundamental in a relational leadership construct. Gardner and Laskin (1995) described this type of leadership as being a leader by choice, leaders who seek “to draw more people into their circle, rather than to denounce or to exclude others . . . [and are] motivated in large measure by the desire to effect changes, rather than simply by a lust for more power” (p. 13). This detachment from power and the desire to free up space to discover, learn, and create together, is paramount to RLO’s success.

It requires a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006) and the willingness to take flight with new ideas, a willingness to allow agency to create new territory for knowledge and learning to grow.

Relationships and freedom to experiment, innovate, establish new ways of working and being, and to have the capacity to ground those new ideas are inherent factors in RLO.

Organizations that embrace rhizomatic-principled behaviors hold space open for learners to exercise agency in their own learning through dialogue and co-creation, thereby enabling agents to exercise agency in deciding how they learn and adapt while working together. Learning and adapting that is practiced rhizomatically paves the way for individuals and inter-professional teams to become other, to recognize and embrace the change that unfolds, and to take spontaneous flights of creativity to deterritorialize and reterritorialize new ways of being and doing (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002). This emergent movement of thought taking the path of a nomad’s venture—movement, discovery, and seeking places that offer potential for new perspectives (Kramer, 2013; Reilly, 2009, 2011b)—when practiced, becomes a learning habit that promotes change in self and others.

Synthesis

The field of adult learning research can be imagined as a garden with a wide range of various plants. Like plants, these various learning theories spring forth and grow in the garden.

Some theories become colorful and elaborate, while others appear crude and wanting. The learning theories in this garden are a single rhizome. Sprouting in the garden, they have made their own connections and erupted into lines of flight, reterritorializing new thinking and ways of considering learning.

Each of the learning theories that have been discussed focus on a subset of behaviors that are partially inherent in RLO. This review of research has presented elements of learning from a selection of scholars who focused on learning in a social, interactive, exploratory, transformative, and relational way. Each theory and framework offered concepts of change and new ways of being as outcomes from their practice and application, supporting the learner as an agent of self- and organizational change. The explored theories also possess rhizomatic-principled elements— connection, multiplicity, heterogeneity, asignifying rupture, relational learning, nomadic learning, and becoming other. RLO potentially extends beyond the fields of scholarship reviewed above, in opening the possibility to learn, lead, and adapt by exercising those rhizomatic principles with intentionality and focus, particularly centered on nomadic learning (lines of flight), becoming other, and relational learning.

Nomadic learning, becoming other, and relational learning requires learners to develop habits and behaviors that are driven by the desire for change, a desire to seek ways to untether territorialized processes and knowledge by detaching them (often spontaneously) to create new learning that they then reterritorialize to practice new ways of being and knowing. Practice repeats, habits form, and agents become other with regard to how they learn and adapt together

62 as organizational processes are routinely assessed and deterritorialized to become something new. The rhizome, always in the middle, continually reaches for more growth.

All the learning theories and frameworks that have been presented, touch upon similar concepts: that learning is best executed and experienced when the environment is open, inclusive of diverse perspectives, and includes reflection and inquiry. Learning is best accomplished in an environment where free movement is enabled and agency is supported and encouraged.

Relational learning—being in relationship, exercising agency, and developing connections—needs further attention as organizations continue to become more complex. The capacity to reach beyond borders and connect in ways that elevate creativity, diversity, and deepen relationships will enable agents and teams to become agile in how they encounter change and lead in their learning.

Becoming other is another unpracticed learning awareness that I am attempting to convey. Although reflection and mindfulness is an emerging practice within the work world, taking the time to express and make explicit how individuals (and certainly processes or work habits) are changed—changed both personally and organizationally—becomes the key to building a workforce that is able to shed who they were before and take on new ways of being and new ways of seeing. Solnit (2005) equated this notion with the Buddhists’ call to unbeing, the ability to lose themselves, becoming agile and able to see themselves and their work differently—emergent and adaptable to continual change.

Nomadic learning within organizations is the third fresh concept that bears merit. Just like the desert nomads’ lifestyles mentioned previously, recognizing when work processes (or the work itself) are in drought conditions, when they are dry, unnourishing, and facing extinction, presents an invitation to organizational learners and leaders to practice new adaptive

63 habits. There is opportunity to pull up stakes that ground them in territorialized processes, and to migrate toward new ways of learning, learning to learn, and being. This is an opportunity for leaders to step back and assume their agents’ competency to take their work in directions and to places where it will thrive, grow, and be nourished into something new. When agents can recognize in themselves when they are becoming stale or when they recognize the need to move to new territory that will nourish both themselves and the business, this is the freedom of creativity and innovation that can transform the work environment.

These three concepts of relational learning, becoming other, and nomadic learning are concepts of learning and satisfaction survival—for both the organization and its agents. When they are missing, are held back, or are disciplined out, humans suffer. It is the ability to recognize that when we work together, in an environment that allows for exploration; for learning through applying our perspectives based on our lived experiences; for being open to others’ ways of being and seeing; and, for realizing that our ideas are not fully our own but a collection of thought, perspective, and recognition of others around us, that we experience a feeling of satisfaction that Csikszentmihalyi (1990) called flow. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) claimed:

The best moments in our lives are not the passive, receptive, relaxing times . . . The best moments usually occur if a person’s body or mind is stretched to its limits in a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile. (p. 3)

Csikszentmihalyi (1990) further suggested when we feel we are in a place of learning or doing that is transcendental, and where we are elevated beyond who we are (in euphoria and joy), those are the times that surpass where we are now and take us into a place where we become fuller, and more than what we were before. It becomes a growth journey into the unknown—and it is the unknown that gives us space to grow in ways beyond what we imagined.

Solnit (2005) implored:

Leave the door open for the unknown, the door into the dark. That’s where the most important things come from, where you yourself came from, and where you will go . . . How will you go about finding that thing the nature of which is totally unknown to you? (p. 4)

It is this concept—this becoming other—that is missing in our Western learning and organizational culture. Graham (1994) argued:

We dream, we long, and some of us believe that we can step outside of ourselves and enter the body of another. But Western culture discourages these yearnings and demands individualism and the formation of strong ego boundaries and stable identities. (p. 352)

This is what I believe to be missing in the literature and what I believe can expand legacy learning theories by incorporating RLO and its principles. By tapping into and expanding individuals’ desires to become other we enable learning and adapting in new ways. This way of learning is a departure from our common way of going through the motions, of moving from one project to another, many times not connecting what is learned from one to another, and not allowing the time or space to acknowledge, recognize, and celebrate how one has changed or become (an)other person through the experience. This notion takes us beyond mere thoughts and ideas; it taps into our whole being of body, emotion, and soul, drawing out of us what is inherently human by being deeply in touch with our learning, and taking flight with that learning in ways that we may not expect. It prompts accessing the meaning we crave in our work (Lewin

& Regine, 2000).

Conclusion

This review of research has sought to unearth various elements of learning constructs

(both personal and organizational) to empirically understand ways organizations can deepen possibility for agents to increase their capacity to learn and adapt while working together. When agents are in an environment that offers freedom and space to explore and interact, inquire and be curious, and examine alternatives to what has been developed as status quo solutions, they

65 deepen their capacity to adapt to others’ perspectives and to organizational change; they experience personal change and build learning habits to apply to future problems. When these learning practices are exercised socially, collective capacity to think beyond fixed and striated systems develops.

RLO broadens learning from what has been presented previously with the intention to examine what happens within and between team members flourish: when they are in the space of learning that occurs when in lines of flight exploration and creation (asignifying rupture), what occurs, both personally and organizationally, when learning prompts and what organizational constructs enable nomadic behaviors to develop and becoming other. I assert that these physical, intellectual, and emotional elements, explicit within an RLO environment, open the way for inter-professional teams to expand their learning and adapting capacity.

The literature reviewed in this chapter demonstrates legacy learning scholarship that has been embraced by individuals, institutions, and organizations for years: social and interactive learning (Dewey, 1916, 1933, 1938/1997), single-loop, double-loop, and triple-loop learning

(Argyris & Schön, 1978; McNamara, 2006), transformational learning (Mezirow, 1991), learning organizations (Senge, 1990, 1994), and rhizomatic learning (Cormier, 2011; Reilly, 2009,

2011b). As we encounter greater complexity within our organizations and the need to work in a networked, cross-collaborative way, the topic of deepening learning and adapting deserves enrichment.

This dissertation, framed within a theoretical, exploratory, critical case study (Yin, 2012,

2014), investigates the lived experiences of the agents within an inter-professional team regarding how they learn and adapt while working together. Organizational storytelling provides a lens through which individuals’ stories reveals how their learning experiences might be

66 grounded (or not) in fixed (territorialized) systems, if they are free to take flight with new ideas

(lines of flight or deterritorializing), thereby become other (reterritorializing), and if, through their experiences, relational and nomadic learning are practiced. Narratives from stories told, analyzed for themes, added color and dimension to individuals’ sense-making as they work and learn together. Through storyline network analysis, I sought to examine if rhizomatic principles exist across the collective and, if so, how they are demonstrated or practiced. The results of the analysis potentially deepens their learning experiences as well as expands existent learning scholarship.

The scant literature that presents rhizome philosophical principles as a potential enhancement to learning in organizations, suggests that there is more to discover. There is much to learn from individuals’ lived experiences of their collective engagements to see if and when rhizome principles exist, how they are demonstrated, and, if so, how they can further learning capacities.

This dissertation serves to address this potential gap in learning theory and framework literature, and to provide new possibilities for enhancing learning and adapting within organizations by gathering stories from an intact, inter-professional. The stories serve to unearth lived experiences within and across the team and potentially provide a lens into whether rhizome-principled learning exists as unique or as additive to learning theories reviewed in this chapter. Chapter III presents the methods of research that was conducted to gather and analyze those stories.

Chapter III: Methodology/Guiding Research Questions and Research Procedures

The purpose of this study is to explore the lived experiences of an inter-professional team about their capacity to learn and adapt while working together within a residential school. This study was framed as a single-case, critical, exploratory study and employed two methods to collect data, that of organizational storytelling to gather individuals’ stories, and storyline network analysis, to analyze stories for themes, patterns, and connections to legacy learning theories and frameworks presented earlier.

Research Question

Learning is a quest that I have embraced most of my life. Being curious about new territories or concepts, exploring the foundations of those endeavors, and obtaining new knowledge that shifts my thinking has continuously intrigued me. And for much of my life I have initiated my learning. Although raised in a traditional school environment, my yearning to explore and understand has danced on the edges of any fixed learning system. Breaking beyond the boundaries of coded learning has driven me to seeking to understand, in new ways, the world in which I live. For example, learning and practicing hermeneutics during my undergraduate studies exposed me to deciphering and analyzing ancient text which, in turn, deepened my curiosity in how words conveyed meaning, which, then, informed new ways to ask questions. I have learned to learn and it has become natural for me to ask questions and challenge the status quo. Learning has changed me; change has helped me learn.

This spirit of learning and curiosity, about how learning principles, when applied and practiced, shift individuals’ capacity to learn and adapt while working together, particularly across an inter-professional team, led me to my research question: Do rhizomatic principles inform, influence, and impact the way an inter-professional team and its agents learn and adapt

68 while working together, and in what ways do those principles differ from, enhance, improve, or limit various legacy learning principles?

The following sections are organized to present the rationale for the overall research design. The first section describes the rationale for a single-case, critical, exploratory case study design, (one that contains sound theoretical propositions), as a container within which to conduct my research (Yin, 2014). The second presents the constructivist approach of organizational storytelling by which to gather insights from the lived experiences participants share by responding to open, interview questions (Boje, 2001, 2008). The third section describes storyline analysis by which stories were analyzed for themes, patterns, and connections to elements of legacy learning theories and frameworks. The final sections present the process of study, and provide details about the organization in which the study was conducted; the selection of participants; the method of analysis; and ethical considerations.

Rationale for Case Study

Levy (2008) suggests that qualitative methodologists generally agree that methodological debates are separable from theoretical debates and that case study methods are compatible with any theoretical orientation. Levy (2008) argued that most typologies of case study research,

“reflect some variation of Lijphart’s . . . categories of atheoretical, interpretive, hypothesis- generating, theory-confirming, theory-informing, and deviant case studies and Eckstein’s . . . categories of configurative-idiographic, disciplined-configurative, heuristic, plausibility probe, and crucial case studies” (p. 3). The varied approaches and beliefs that abound regarding what a case study is or is not, prompted me to focus my understanding, and by extension, my decision regarding a case study direction, on two scholars who have been influential in my past learning about case study research, Yin (2014) and Stake (1995).

Yin (2014) described a case study as a research method to “allow investigators to focus on a ‘case’ and retain a holistic and real-world perspective—such as studying individual life cycles, small group behavior, organizational and managerial processes, neighborhood change, school performance, international relations, and the maturation of industries” (p. 4). Case studies enable a researcher to investigate the how and why questions regarding a phenomenon within a specific context.

According to Yin (2014), a case study design is appropriate when a researcher seeks to answer how and why questions within a given context. He suggested that these types of questions are:

more exploratory and likely to lead to the use of a case study, history, or experiment as the preferred research method . . . because such questions deal with operational links needing to be traced over time, rather than mere frequencies or incidence. (p. 10)

Baxter and Jack (2008) also argued:

A case study design should be considered when: (a) the focus of the study is to answer “how” and “why” questions; (b) you cannot manipulate the behaviour [sic] of those involved in the study; (c) you want to cover contextual conditions because you believe they are relevant to the phenomenon under study; or (d) the boundaries are not clear between the phenomenon and context. (p. 535)

My research question focused on:

• if, how, and why an inter-professional team learns and adapts while working together;

• conducting organizational storytelling where participants shared their lived

experiences about their working lives, (taken directly from their points of view, not

mine) with open and exploratory questions that guided them to tell their stories;

• the contextual conditions of a learning institution relevant to the study of learning and

adapting.

Yin (2014) expanded on contextual conditions and suggested, “you would want to do case study research because you want to understand a real-world case and assume that such an

70 understanding is likely to involve important contextual conditions pertinent to your case” (p. 16).

Given that the school where my study took place, was an educational institution focused on the well-being of the whole student (physical, mental, emotional), its real-world work aligned well with the findings the research question sought to discover.

Types of case studies. Types of case studies abound and selecting one is guided by the purpose of the research. A decision about whether a researcher is seeking to describe a case, explore a case, or compare cases provides helpful information toward what type of case the researcher investigates (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Yin (2014) and Stake (1995) described various types of case studies using different terms. Yin (2014) categorized cases as explanatory or exploratory and, within these types, he provided five rationales for designing a single case study.

These were: critical, unusual, common, revelatory, and longitudinal. Stake (1995) used descriptions such as intrinsic, instrumental, or collective. This study was classified within Yin’s taxonomy as an exploratory, critical, single case study approach.

Exploratory case studies. Yin (2012) argued that an exploratory case study’s purpose was, “to discover theory by directly observing a social phenomenon in its natural form” (p. 29).

Eisenhardt (1989) described a case study as, “a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings” (p. 534). Due to the exploratory nature of my work in the social context of a learning institution, the case study I used accomplished this: it provided data that opened the way for further study and “assume[d] some other form . . . a prelude to much social research, not just to new case studies” (Yin, 2012, p. 29).

Yin (2014) suggested that a case study researcher must possess the following abilities: to ask good questions and to interpret the responses; to be a good listener; to be adaptive and flexible in order to respond to various situations and styles of interview subjects; to have a strong

71 comprehension of topics being studied; and to be unbiased by preconceived notions. The investigator functions as a senior investigator (Feagin, Orum, & Sjoberg, 1991) and examines the participants’ situations as if probing for artifacts in an archeological dig: exploratory, curious, intrigued, open, and seeking discovery.

Single, critical case studies. Yin (2014) made further distinctions about choosing between a single-case or multiple-case design. Yin (2014) claimed, “one rationale for selecting a single-case rather than a multiple-case design is that the single case can represent the critical test of a significant theory” (p. 51). Single-case studies, according to Yin, are analogous to single experiments, and apply the same conditions between both. They also can “represent a significant contribution to knowledge and theory building by confirming, challenging, or extending the theor[ies] . . . and can help to refocus future investigations in an entire field” (Yin, 2014, p. 51).

The research that I conducted was related to learning theories and theoretical propositions of learning and adapting. Yin (2014) suggested that “these form the substantive context for . . .a single, [critical] case” (p. 51) that of having a theoretical proposition from which to study. I anticipated unearthing learning theories’ and frameworks’ evidences of learning and adapting as

I listened to study participants’ stories, and finding the propositions of learning theories and frameworks as evident within the context of the organization.

When considering my research design, it was clear that within the context of humans as they interact (or act), there would be perpetual movement and change at play. Therefore, a design that accommodated such movement was conducive to the learning outcome. Since I would be studying one organization with the anticipation of learning those experiences that occurred between or among individuals through the lenses of learning theories and frameworks, a critical,

72 exploratory case study was an appropriate container within which to conduct the research (Yin,

2014).

The dissertation case study was conducted within an educational institution (described later in this chapter). The core purpose of the case study was to explore the lived experiences

(through stories told) of a single, inter-professional team consisting of teachers, therapists, medical professionals, and administrators to understand how they learned and adapted while working together, being fully aware that as new information unfolded while capturing their stories, the case could potentially require refinement and further literature review (Yin, 2012).

Examination of events, influences, and personal experiences that revealed principles of learning that mapped to theories and principles was anticipate emerging from the collective’s stories.

Rationale for a Constructivist/Constructionist Approach

By researching through a constructionist’s lens, the researcher is in a position to observe, listen, and engage curiously about their subjects’ lived experiences. These lived experiences

(through their telling) are made known and contextualized based on the way each person’s past experiences influence how they see and make meaning of the world around them (Bentz &

Shapiro, 1998; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Each person views the world differently and interprets meaning based on the experiences they have lived and, retrospectively, those experiences inform their world-view. Experiences happen moment by moment and can inform meaning as events occur or as they are remembered. Views shift when diverse lenses are in play; stories change based on individuals’ perspectives. Rubin and Rubin (2012) argued:

Constructionists understand that people look at matters through distinct lenses and reach somewhat different conclusions. Multiple, apparently conflicting, versions of the same event or object can be true at the same time. The person who calls a wooden chair an antique is no more correct than the person who views it as junk; he or she just comes to the chair with different experiences, knowledge, and perspectives. (p. 19)

Constructivists believe that, as individuals learn together, their collective mindsets shift and develop because of co-creation. They develop shared understandings with each other and those shared understandings serve to shape a contextual story grounded in their collective experience. Rubin and Rubin (2012) suggested, “when you need to know what something feels like or how it works from the inside, when you are looking at something unusual or unique,

[constructivist] research tools are more appropriate” (p. 3).

Both Yin (2014) and Stake (1995) based their approach to case study on a constructivist paradigm. Constructivists believe that truth is relative and that it is dependent on an individual’s perspective. Crabtree and Miller (1999) argued that the paradigm, “recognizes the importance of the subjective human creation of meaning, but doesn’t reject outright some notion of objectivity.

Pluralism, not relativism, is stressed with focus on the circular dynamic tension of subject and object” (p. 10).

Constructivism is grounded in social construction of reality (Searle, 1995), therefore the dependency on close collaboration between researcher and participant enriches the advantage of social-construction, (or co-construction), in that it enables study participants to tell their stories

(Crabtree & Miller, 1999). By telling their stories, participants are able to share their views of reality, thereby providing the researcher with ways of understanding the participants’ actions in a deeper and more intimate manner (Lather, 1992; Robottom & Hart, 1993).

Data Analysis

This theoretical case study was conducted using a phenomenological methodology of organizational storytelling to gather stories from an inter-professional team’s lived experience of learning and adapting while working together. As stories were told, themes emerged and storylines unfolded. It is the storylines within the organization that became explicit and tangible.

Often, meaning is discovered during the telling, resulting in something like forensics wherein

74 both the researcher and storyteller discover evidence of meaning that is new or unrealized in the past (Boje, 2008). Such discoveries emerged through the tellers’ stories in this study.

Once the interviews were completed, the audio files were sent for professional transcription. When completed and received, they were then reviewed (by both researcher and participants) for accuracy and understanding. The stories were analyzed thematically; the discovered themes intersecting through each story creating a connected, multiplistic cartography.

The themes were color-coded and examined with respect to the overall inter-professional teams’ experiences together, thereby providing an expression of “the heritage of an organization or of a group” (Gabriel, 2000, pp. 42–43) for the researcher to analyze and interpret. Gabriel

(2000) furthered described this process: “The researcher interprets in order to get to the truth behind the changes undergone by meaning” (p. 43).

Facets of meaning were assembled from a core storyline of change, including how individual professionals and their organization, learned and changed, and how that informed how they worked together and with their students. As data were explored, patterns emerged and formed structures of meaning, thereby contextualizing the essence of the lived experiences of learning and adapting told by the participants (Creswell, 1998). The core storyline revealed what was meaningful for team members, forming and framing what became the heart of meaning in what they do, and how they contributed to their students’ lives.

Interview questions were grounded within the context of learning and adapting, yet were unstructured in a way that allowed the stories to unfold naturally. When a story appeared to be emerging or a significant pause occurred, asking “can you say more?” was offered or observations of emotions or pauses were shared to encourage tellers to expand their story. For example, when one participant, Kathryn, said that she had “forgotten herself” in one of her

75 stories, I asked her to describe more about what that meant for her. As she reflected deeper into her story, she named that experience as “transcendent . . . outside herself.”

Framing interviews with open-ended questions was one part of the storytelling process.

As researcher, I needed to be cognizant of any projections I placed or opinions I may have formed as I listened; remaining neutral and purely present for whatever emerged was paramount to listening to the stories in a way that would weave into the making of a plot by the participants, not by me. Even when stories may have sounded confusing or incoherent to me, it was important that I held the space for their stories’ messiness and meaning to emerge (Boje, 2001).

Insights, patterns, and themes can be revealed only as the researcher becomes familiar with the data. Therefore, transcription analysis was accomplished in several steps. First, I read the transcribed stories multiple times to allow for immersion into what the stories revealed.

Reading their stories revealed images of what I imagined the school day and what their work lives looked and sounded like. Their stories, rooted within the context of their organization and the changes they experienced, are connected to the school’s cultural setting (Moen, 2006), and present primary schemes by which their meaning is made (Polkinghorne, 1988).

Color-coding, making marginal notes, tagging pages, and using Dedoose (2017) to organize interview excerpts provided the means to identify and narrow down themes throughout the narrative. During analysis, prominent themes emerged and associating, sub-themes trailed. describes those emergent themes and associating sub-themes, and the storyline they formed, bounded within the context of their work at the school and the changes they experienced.

Rationale for Using Organizational Storytelling

Individuals’ life stories are authored through creative exploration and consideration of the possibilities that surround them. Kearney (2002) suggested that our stories are, “creative redescription of the world such that hidden patterns and hitherto unexplored meanings can

76 unfold” (p. 12). It is through telling stories that sense begins to form as individuals imagine themselves as actors within their stories. They own the plot, the storyline, and the outcome of their story; learning emerges as deeply real for them and, as a result, develops groundwork for repeatable and actionable application and outcomes (Snowden, 1999). It is through individuals’ stories and the telling that occurs after one reflects and remembers life events, (Czarniawska,

1998; Gabriel, 2000) that internal change occurs; insights become tangible and reachable; new learning is self-led (Gabriel & Connell, 2010).

Organizational learning and culture potentially shifts, as well, as individuals remember and share their lived experiences with each other, thereby shaping how they relate to each other and how they co-create new cultural ways of being (Czarniawska, 1998; Gabriel, 2000; Rhodes

& Brown, 2005). Change, learning, and new ways of being become even more explicit as stories are told and analyzed within the context of a single case study; examining one organization, in this case an inter-professional team within, allows the individuals to notice, and the research to make explicit, elements of their learning and adapting through the lens of their own lived experiences (Yin, 2012, 2014).

Stories, and the telling of them, create meaning for the agents who work within organizations as well as for customers and stakeholders who share in their profits and success.

Snowden (1999) suggested:

Organizations are beginning to understand that story telling is not an optional extra. It is something which already exists as an integral part of defining what that organization is; what it means to buy from it; what it means to work for it. (p. 31)

Story, unlike listing events in date order or answering questions on a survey, is “a creative re-description of the world such that hidden patterns and hitherto unexplored meanings can unfold” (Rhodes & Brown, 2005, p. 167). It is a quest for meaning, not scientific truth.

Postmodern theorists extend that notion to claim that “stories should be regarded as ontologically

77 prior to sensemaking, and that what people seek to make sense of are not events themselves, but accounts of them” (Rhodes & Brown, 2005, p. 171). Each event, as told, shifts the shape and meaning of prior telling of the same event through changes in language and perspective. The event’s contextual cartography shifts with each person’s self-narration of the same event.

Therefore, reflexivity of language is a way where individuals can make sense of their organizational life and infuse meaning into their working lives in ways that a quantitative method

(like a survey or questionnaire) may likely not reveal. Stories, and their thematic underpinnings, provide a rich, landscape of meaning and discovery as they are told and as they are remembered.

Words from Heraclitus, recounted in Plato’s Cratylus—“all things are in motion and nothing at rest . . . you cannot go into the same river twice” (Jowett, 1892, pp. 344–345)— foreshadow this notion of story emergence, change, and fluidity. Due to the nature of a river’s flow, new space—and new entry points—are constantly created and changed. Due to the sharing, flow, and weaving together of lived experiences grounded within the context of work-life, co- constructed learning becomes explicit and informs changes in one’s perspective and frame of reference (Mezirow, 1994). New learning, newly created thought, a continual reentering into new learning (and, subsequently, unlearning) becomes an ever-flowing reciprocal change through the stories shared and analyzed.

There were a few epistemologies to explore when considering how to examine the research question. Bentz and Shapiro (1998) defined a “culture of inquiry . . . [as a] chosen modality of working within a field, an applied epistemology or working model of knowledge used in explaining or understanding reality” (p. 83). Considering the options in research paradigms, it was important to examine my position as a researcher and how I wished to proceed with my study. from a qualitative, constructivist position and to conduct the work using

78 organizational storytelling as the method to gather insights from participants’ lived-experience sharing.

Grounding from experience. A pilot case study, which I conducted in 2015, focused on rhizomatic principles as they related to learning and adapting from a conceptual standpoint. It was a case study where I employed organizational storytelling to learn the lived experiences from individuals working within an intact team (Charney, 2015). Their shared experiences gave the team members an opportunity to reflect upon their time together as a team, as well as provide space for deepening their awareness of changes that occurred. The case study also provided an opportunity to deepen my own knowledge and understanding regarding content (learning philosophy) and methodology (organizational storytelling, case study, and storyline network analysis). I applied this knowledge as I listened to individuals’ stories and, through analysis and reflection, cull emergent themes from their stories and map them to learning principles (Boje,

2001). The experience also broadened my interest in exploring others’ lived experiences, employing the same methodologies to explore my research question.

Organizational storytelling. Rhodes and Brown (2005) posed the question, “What is a good story worth?” (p. 167). Case study research contributes to organizational scholarship with empirical inquiry that examines a phenomenon within its real-life context. A case study is also “a story against which researchers can compare their experiences and gain rich theoretical insights”

(Dyer & Wilkins, 1991, p. 613) and, therefore, “classics” in organizational studies “are good stories” (p. 617).

According to Deleuze and Lapoujade (2006), “Everything has a story” (p. 314).

Philosophy, cinema, painting, music, and even science create stories, each in their own way.

Stories often inform and provide colorful description for purposes of understanding what is and

79 imagining what could be. Possibility abounds in each story as context and personal experience gives swell to what is told; each story, even from the same event, is different given everyone’s experience. Gabriel (2000) suggested:

Stories are narratives with plots and characters, generating emotion in narrator and audience, through a poetic elaboration of symbolic material. This material may be a product of fantasy or experience, including an experience of earlier narratives. Story plots entail conflicts, predicaments, trials, coincidences, and crises that call for choices, decisions, actions, and interactions, whose actual outcomes are often at odds with the characters’ intentions and purposes. (p. 239)

Didion (2006) suggested, “we tell ourselves stories in order to live” (p. 185). Therefore, I selected organizational storytelling as the methodology to capture my study participants’ lived experiences with regard to how they learn and adapt while working together, and the meanings made while experiencing those lived experiences (Ann & Carr, 2011; Bentz & Shapiro, 1998;

Boje, 1995, 2001; Creswell & Clark, 2007; Czarniawska, 1998; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Gabriel, 2000;

Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008; Jarvis, 1999; Maynes et al., 2008; Rehorick & Bentz, 2009; Rubin &

Rubin, 2012; Schaafsma et al., 2011; Schwandt, 2007). I chose this methodology to reach below or to get under elements that often go unexamined: giving voice (and life) to the unspoken and unheard, and providing a way to realize and share knowledge that are often untapped within a complex organization (Gabriel & Connell, 2010).

Rhodes and Brown (2005) suggested that storytelling serves as an effective container to expose thoughts that rest unconsciously below the surface of individuals, yet are often projected in alternative ways throughout the organization. Storytelling, and using voice as a means to collect and analyze data, is a catalyst to unearth meaning hidden by objective facts, thereby making explicit those beliefs, behaviors, and actions that can inform advanced awareness and learning. Boje (1995) furthered this concept:

What is interesting about storytelling in organizations is that stakeholders also posit alternative stories with alternative motives and implications to the very same underlying

incident. The story takes on more importance than mere objective facts. In complex organizations, part of the reason for storytelling is the working out of those differences in the interface of individual and collective memory. (p. 107)

Organizational storytelling is a distinctive method compared to a narrative study or analysis as traditionally conducted (Bentz & Shapiro, 1998; Boje, 1995, 2001; Czarniawska,

1998; Gabriel, 2000). Organizational storytelling focuses on a single entity—in this case, an inter-professional team—whereas narrative study typically focuses its inquiry across several groups or entities for the purpose of unearthing meaning that is deeply and foundationally embedded across multiple organizations. S. Scott (2002) described this distinction using a metaphor of drilling for water: “If you’re drilling for water, it’s better to drill one, hundred-foot well than one hundred, one-foot wells” (p. 39). Organizational storytelling enables the researcher to drill deeply on a specific area of interest, thereby “interrogating reality by mining for increased clarity, improved understanding, and impetus for change” (S. Scott, 2002, p. 39). Interview questions, used as a guideline to get at specific topics, are held lightly to provide open space for further interrogation. Stories were then able to unfold in directions as the teller leads; the researcher follows the story with a curious mindset, listening for cues to probe further. This generative approach aligns well with Yin’s (2014) case taxonomy of exploratory, critical, single-case study approaches.

The researcher focuses on one, distinct organization and listens to individuals’ lived experiences within a specific contextual framework (e.g., collaboration, learning, leadership, or managing conflict), with the objective of understanding how that particular organization thrives, learns and adapts, or not, within its cultural context. Referring to this, Gabriel (2000) spoke of

“organizations as terrains of nostalgia” (p. 184). An inter-professional team that collaborates, solves problems, overcomes adversity, and innovates together, learns from their collective engagement.

Organizational storytelling enables an individual, in telling their story, to unite their own perspective with the social environment in which they exist. It allows them to connect emotionally with their work, and the relationships that they develop through their work, and it provides grounding for meaning-making regarding that work. Organizational storytelling opens the possibility for individuals to share personal perspectives that are often untouched or unexamined in the everyday work environment. Their collective, lived experiences reveal common themes that, when examined and used for learning, can further individuals’ ongoing mutual understanding, growth, influence, and “create . . . possibility for greater self-discovery and a heightened sense of self-efficacy” (Roberts, 2012, p. 31).

The phenomenological approach of organizational storytelling allows for, as Boje (2001) described, “exemplars of the messy process of human sense-making” (p. 126). Through shared stories, study participants have the opportunity to access tacit truths underlying their experiences, to get under their explicit ways of being. This unearths sense-making and learning. The phenomenological starting point situates a space to explore when learning principles are made explicit. Themes captured by examining study participants’ shared, lived experiences within the context of organizational learning (along with their own learning awareness and the relationships they experience with their coworkers), emerge from their stories. These themes can then inform the development of future learning frameworks.

Storytelling provides study participants opportunity to author and co-create meaning across the organization by way of sharing their experiences and learning from the connections made through the analysis. This can potentially enliven the team’s view regarding their own learning and adapting; it holds potential to uplift the collective’s meaning-making regarding the work that they perform together. Within the context of organizational and learning theories,

82 organizational storytelling research has produced a rich body of knowledge unavailable through other methods of analysis. It provides a method to unearth organizational culture and sense- making and it is a means for study participants to reveal their lived experiences within a specific cultural context through social construction (Boyce, 1995).

Organizational storytelling enables an individual, through their telling, to unite their individual perspective with the social environment in which they live. It allows them to connect emotionally with their work and the relationships they develop through their work, and it provides grounding for making meaning regarding that work. Organizational storytelling opens paths of possibility for individuals to share personal perspectives that are often untouched or unexamined in the everyday work environment. Gabriel (2000) argued:

Many organizations are not generally pleasant places in which to live or work. They place severe restrictions on the individual’s rights and freedoms and allow little room for those aspects of the human soul that are not directly relevant to the organizational objectives. Emotion, spontaneity, and play are largely disenfranchised, as is, in any meaningful sense, the pursuit of pleasure and happiness. If vast areas of the human soul are systematically excluded from the organization, is it not possible to argue that stories represent attempts to gain readmission in surreptitious ways and diverse guises? (p. 57)

Humans naturally live and interact rhizomatically and, when provided the opportunity to connect in ways that are beyond linear expectations, thrive in a space that allows for multiplistic and heterogeneous interactions. Assessing those interplays objectively is not practical.

Understanding how each person responds to the questions by listening to their stories and by subjectively interpreting what I hear from what they tell, provides rich, textured, thick data from which to excavate deeper concepts of learning and adapting. Therefore, the research was conducted within a framework of a theoretical case study using organizational storytelling as the methodology to gather data. Theories of learning provided context for the study; organizational storytelling was the tool used to gather data, thematic analysis was conducted to analyze for

83 themes, patterns, and meaning; and storyline network analysis revealed connection and interplay across the collective.

Storyline Network Analysis

Qualitative research provides the means to research a group of subjects through exploration and within the context in which they exist. It is from exploring and gathering meaning from individuals’ stories that meaning can be measured with respect to individuals’ or collectives’ contextual phenomena (Creswell & Clark, 2007; Czarniawska, 1998). Narrative research, and the story that is embedded within the research, is a “creative redescription of the world such that hidden patterns and hitherto unexplored meanings can unfold” (Rhodes &

Brown, 2005, p. 168). Interpreting data and making connections to the research occurs inductively; themes emerge as the researcher centrally moves among the stories told, followed by enriching the themes by building upon each one to shape the next.

As Boje (2001) suggested: “Stories are not static; stories web, assemble, disassemble, and otherwise deconstruct one another in self-organizing systems” (p. 5). This perfectly describes stories as rhizomes. The work of storytelling is fluid, not static, thereby taking on a likeness to rhizome, always moving, always in the middle. Each story event brings deeper richness to the collective themes and moves in directions that only the in situ story can suggest “story assemblages and dynamic networking [where] there never is a ‘whole story’ or an ‘originary story’” (Boje, 2001, p. 6). Just as rhizomes’ movement always occurs from the middle, meandering toward wherever it finds its next place to spread, so do stories naturally emerge as they are told, ever-connecting, multiplistic in meaning, and entering and exiting an ever-shifting, ever-reaching cartography.

Storyline network analysis is what Boje (2001) calls an “antenarrative” (p. 1) approach by which individuals give meaning to their experiences. As an antenarrative approach it applies multiple functions. Boje (2001) described elements of network analysis as follows:

1. It seeks to understand the complex dynamics of storytelling among people across their social networks. 2. The intertextual aspects of stories can be explored in relations to connective interchange. However, there is a difference between presenting a taxonomic map of how story themes connect, as seen in the eye of the analyst (researcher), and tracing the patterns of story . . . in situ. 3. A story network analysis can be the basis to set up a virtual complex of hyper-links [sic] to partially re-enact the interconnectivity of a story network. (p. 62)

In this, the researcher also dwells reflexively, in the middle (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002) of the storylines, also moving in situ as stories unfold and, through thematic, storyline network analysis, derives richness of meaning from the individuals’ telling. Storylines are “about the living relations” (Boje, 2001, p. 3) that emerge from the analysis; each storyline relates to others’ stories, comprising an ever-evolving story that is uniquely connected within the group of storytellers.

The researcher becomes a storyteller, as well, in that their own stories (through reflexivity) become empirical evidence for ongoing research (Rhodes & Brown, 2005). With respect to reviewing case studies, Dyer and Wilkins (1991), suggested that studies grounded in storytelling gain power from their narrative elements rather than just their abstract concepts.

Storytelling research uses theory as a plot, creating a compelling means of communicating research in comparison to statistical demonstrations of theory. Schaafsma et al. (2011) described reflexive examination as a way “to commit to including [our] ‘selves’ in the process of knowledge creation. Reflexivity is an act of deep reflection on the values, beliefs, persons, and certainly the ideologies that influence the way a researcher engages in the research” (p. 73). Dual reflection by both the study participant and the researcher, contributes co-created meaning and resonance to the research.

Curiosity, sense-making, and storytelling prompted me to deeply study an inter- professional team within the context of a single, critical case study, and to learn, through the telling of lived experiences, how they learn and adapt. Further questions that expanded my primary research question were:

• How do agents truly learn and adapt within and beyond the structured, curriculum-

driven training they experience?

• What types of organizational environments enable learning and adapting to flourish

beyond what is traditionally enabled within hierarchical systems?

• What do organizational leaders need to do to create the types of environments that

enable rhizomatic-principled learning and adapting (behaviors, infrastructure, or

processes)?

It was from listening to individuals sharing stories regarding their lived experiences that I sought to learn what new insights emerged for them—individually and for the organization— with regard to how they foster learning through reflecting, sharing, applying new learning, and creating new ways of being and working. To that end, I conducted my research to gather and analyze those lived experiences from an intact team within one organization, in this case, an inter-professional team of teachers, therapists, administrators, and medical staff who worked for the school within a rehabilitation home.

Method of Study

The following section provides information regarding how and where the study was conducted, and who participated in the study. The investigation unearthed if (and how) learning and adapting occurs across the inter-professional team as they work together to serve their clients within a learning institution.

Selection of the organization. My professional career has been grounded in learning; the roles I have held have been and remain within a context of learning. Learning institutions (e.g. schools, training organizations, retreat centers) are often assumed to be committed to a belief that learning is paramount to the employees’ work. However, learning is often the product that is delivered to clients and customers; learning is not always held as an organizational, behavioral norm for the workers themselves.

I chose to work with the school for several reasons. First, it is an educational institution that serves individuals with special needs. It has a highly diverse population of clients and, given the objective of serving those diverse needs, the staff must remain closely aligned with respect to administering the care, education, and support specific to all clients. The nature of their work requires constant and close connection with each other and with the client, all of which is unique to that client.

Secondly, the school is a non-profit organization, one that depends on funding from contributions received from around the world. Therefore, this research offered a shared opportunity to participate and learn. Because they are a non-profit entity, their staff members are not necessarily afforded the opportunity to participate in studies that engage them in storytelling.

The school’s Chief Executive Officer, Head of Psychology, and its Director of Education, all considered this study as a positive experience for the individuals who would participate and, ultimately, for the school at large. They looked forward to learning from the experience and to possibly use organizational storytelling as a means for future learning and development.

Thirdly, the study provided me an opportunity to test my research question within a context, which, I believe, engages in learning that is grounded in the learning theories and frameworks presented earlier, even if those learning theories and frameworks were not always

87 made explicit. I felt it would give me an opportunity to explore with individuals who are dedicated to serving their clients’ learning needs and to examine what meaning they made from those experiences.

Interviews and participant demographics. In this study, individual interviews ranging up to 60 minutes were conducted with 16 team members who regularly work together.

Participants’ tenures ranged from months to multiple decades; team roles comprised of administration, teaching, nursing, rehabilitation, and paraprofessional, also referred to as teacher assistant3 (Teacher Assistants, n.d.). Study participants were selected based on their interest in participating, and my interest in obtaining a cross-section of gender and length of tenure at the school. Participants’ ages ranged from early 20s through mid-60s; both men and women served at the school; all were Caucasian. Figure 3.1 provides the interview participants’ demographics.

Figure 3.1. Study participant demographics. (n=16)

Study participants were identified with pseudonyms (assigned by the researcher). This allowed for anonymity, and thereby, provided for a deeper, more humanistic story, and kept with the phenomenological approach intended.

3 For the purposes of this study, and to remain consistent with language used at the school, the term “paraprofessional” is used when referring to the teacher assistant role.

In the opening chapter, I argued that complex organizations, and the individuals who work within them (complex human beings), demand that team members learn, adapt, and work in connected ways. Complex systems, such as the school, therefore demand that connected and adaptive behaviors must be nurtured to both serve clients and support the team’s ever-shifting capacity to adapt to students’ ever-changing needs. Uhl-Bien (2007) defined complex systems

(such as the school) as complex adaptive systems (CAS). Uhl-Bien (2007) posited that they are:

Neural-like networks of interacting, interdependent agents who are bonded in a cooperative dynamic by common goal, outlook, need, etc. They are changeable structures with multiple, overlapping hierarchies, and like the individuals that comprise them, CAS are linked with one another in a dynamic, interactive network. (p. 300)

Historically, many individuals who work together in these complex systems have also developed learning habits derived from overly-coded, hierarchical, traditional, teacher-driven, and highly structured educational systems, ones that were less likely to encourage learning experiences that are multiplistic, heterogeneous, or connected. Hence, when individuals enter their working lives, adaptive skills that enable optimal team and collaborative experiences are unpracticed and remain wanting in a system that depend on connected and adaptive behaviors.

Participants, Pseudonyms, and Place

Stories were gathered over several days while meeting with participants in an assigned conference room, separated from the school’s classrooms. Table 3.1 introduces each storyteller, their pseudonym (assigned by the researcher), and their tenure in years.

Table 3.1

List of Participants (by Pseudonyms), Roles, and Tenure at School (in Years).

PARTICIPANT ROLE AT SCHOOL TENURE IN (PSEUDONYM) YEARS Lori Director of Rehabilitation 20 Cindy Assistant Principal 18 Amanda Assistant Principal 18 Ethan Teacher (Art) 15 Addison Principal 10 Paul Paraprofessional 8 Len Special Education Teacher 7 Mary Special Education Teacher 6 Nathan Nurse 6 Pat Teacher (Science & Math) 5 Douglas Director of Admission 4 Kathryn Speech Therapist 4 Monica Special Education Teacher 3 Nick Special Education Teacher 2 Jordan Director of Student Services 1.5 Kathy Occupational Therapist 1

The design of the study was intentionally explicit, conscious, and participative. The study was conducted through a series of open, exploratory interviews with a cross-section of 16 staff members. The individuals all possessed various responsibilities for serving clients and for approaching their work. Teachers, administrators, nurses, and therapists interacted with each other, shared information, and approached each client to meet their individual needs. Their work was grounded in meaning; they were socially bonded within their common mission as educators.

Boyce (1995) argued: “Collective sense-making can be understood as the process whereby groups interactively create social reality, which becomes the organizational reality”

(p. 109). Collectively, the team works in an environment that is in perpetual change as each client’s needs varies according to their educational level, physical capacity, and intellectual

90 acuity, needs often shifting daily. Each client is met where they are within the context of their needs, desires, and growth. Therefore, it was anticipated that the participants would unearth new social realities as they told their stories about working and learning together and, through those revelations, new realities might emerge and form.

Interviews were scheduled for a duration of approximately 60 minutes and each participant was asked to read and sign a consent form prior to their interview (Appendix A).

Participants were invited to create a pseudonym for themselves to ensure anonymity during the story collection and analysis. They all declined to provide a pseudonym; therefore, pseudonyms were assigned.

A questionnaire (Appendix B) was prepared to use as a guideline during the interviews.

The open, exploratory questions prompted for instances of learning, knowledge exchange, problem solving, and reflection with regard to both personal and inter-team learning and adapting.

Although open-ended questions were used, the space for exploration and further probing was held loosely so that individuals had opportunities to reflect on and share what resonated most for them. Their stories mattered in that, as they were shared, they perpetuated more stories or took different directions. Emerging, unfolding, and layering occurred while individuals shared from their experiences. New insights emerged in the moment, so it was to be open to the possibility of emergent thinking and sharing. Schaafsma et al. (2011) suggested, “researchers and tellers of stories invent and reinvent the research journey by continuously reading, rereading, and asking questions that keep the inquiry open. The research agenda is invented in the doing and in the reinvestigation and re-seeing” (p. 72). Just as the rhizome grows, breaks, and re-grows in

91 varying directions, new questions took root as stories unfolded, directing a new path of inquiry and furthering individual reflexivity.

Interviews were digitally-recorded to ensure transcription accuracy and were stored securely for purposes of both current and future scholarly research. Transcriptions were provided to each participant for review to ensure their words were both captured and transcribed according to what they intended; follow-up interviews were offered for accuracy of meaning. Although selecting participative individuals was a vital step in the process, stories shared by selected individuals had potential to lead to others within and across the organization who may emerge as important contributors to how the organizational story unfolds. Therefore, identification (and, as a result, stories gathered and analysis undertaken) could have led to identifying additional participants for further inquiry. This way of thinking was congruent to my research question and its intention: open, emergent, heterogeneous, and following where lines of flight might lead.

Thematic, storyline network analysis. Boyatzis (1998) described thematic analysis as

“a process for encoding qualitative information . . . [which may result in] a list of themes; a complex model with themes, indicators, and qualifications that are causally related; or something in between [those] two forms” (p. 4). Boyatzis (1998) furthered this description to include overlapping or alternative purposes for thematic analysis use as:

A way of seeing; a way of making sense out of seemingly unrelated material; a way of analyzing qualitative information; a way of systematically observing a person, an interaction, a group, a situation, an organization, or a culture; and a way of converting qualitative information into quantitative data. (pp. 4–5)

Stories gathered were transcribed and analyzed for overall themes such as story fragments, people, things, ideas, and ways of learning and adapting. Text and voice were analyzed for meaning and connection. My notes, impressions, and journaling during the process contributed color and richness (as well as keeping my bias in check). A simple method of color-

92 coding allowed for recognizing story fragments, themes, and patterns of relationship between stories (Boje, 2001).

The danger of selecting certain organizational narratives that could have amplified the researcher’s preconceived beliefs or desires, was avoided while pursuing this story-based research. Attention was paid to that danger by self-examining any preconceived agendas that could drive questioning, or disregarding questions that could reveal stories that might work against the study’s intention. The stories stood alone, spoke for themselves, and were given space to allow for the humanity within the stories to emerge, while not falling prey to reducing their value to codes or striated analysis (Gabriel, 2000).

Another danger in story-based research that was considered, was that of regarding the stories as facts (Gabriel, 2000). Each teller shared their story through a lens of his or her lived experience. No two stories were alike; a teacher’s lived experience was different from a therapist’s in how they learned and adapted in their work. Their perspective of the client, although objectives for care and support were well-aligned, shifted depending on the situation, moment, or need. How they made meaning of their interpretations was different depending on each professional’s perspectives and experiences. This presented an opportunity for deeper observation and curiosity during the interviews, ensuring that I listened with a beginner’s mind— curious, inquiring for understanding, neutral—and did not allow other stories to influence interpretation.

Coding was conducted to analyze for themes in relationships, patterns, and mapping related to the learning theories and framework elements mentioned earlier. Qualitative analysis engendered the need to pay attention to recurring themes as well as to rely on professional instinct about what was heard and observed. Martin (1990) suggested practices to help the

93 researcher interpret stories, such as examining silences and disruptions in the text, interpreting metaphors and double entendres, and examining unique or alien features found in the text.

During this analysis, interpretations were made, as Gabriel (2000) suggested, to “unlock the inner meaning of stories” (p. 43). Interpretations, thematic mapping, and relational correspondence was conducted by coding, through gut instinct, and by listening for what was being said and not said.

Attention to the teller’s position, the humanity of his or her story, and the meaning he or she conveyed, was grounding for both researcher and listener. Through the process of listening and inquiring for understanding, I sought to understand how learning and adapting occurred across the inter-professional team, and how it could deepen future learning and adapting across the organization.

Ethical Considerations

Whenever research is conducted in partnership with human participants, the researcher must be aware of and uphold the rights and dignities of the research participants. Consideration of risks while participating in research (such as physical, psychological, or emotional impacts) must be addressed. When designing research, any possible reputational or job loss implications must be considered and addressed within the design. Who is in support of this research? What implications might there be if participants choose to join the study or opt out? What future implications might exist with regard to confidentiality?

In this research, participants were asked to volunteer for the study. All efforts were made to ensure that anyone who works within the school had the opportunity to volunteer, which included all roles, races, genders, sexual orientations, or religious beliefs. They were made aware of the study through a communication in partnership with the Director of Education, announcing the opportunity to contribute with the assurance that their confidentiality would be upheld and

94 assured. Transparency regarding the organization’s support of the study was communicated along with the assurance that participation was not mandatory. Consenting participants were made aware of their choice to opt out of the study at any time.

Chapter Summary

This chapter outlined the characteristics and utility of a theoretical case study and organizational storytelling as a phenomenological constructivist framework. Details included the interview participants’, location demographics, data collection method, and analysis of data collected. Chapter IV provides details about the case findings including contextual information about the participant, their organizational, and their lived experiences while working together.

Chapter V presents a summary of overall findings, limitations of the study, recommendations for future research, and researcher reflections.

Chapter IV: Findings

Stories have been told and narratives used for many years and over multiple generations, often serving to inform and provide colorful description for purposes of understanding what is, and imagining what could be. Possibility abounds as context and personal experience gives swell to what is told; each story, even drawn from the same event, is different given individuals’ experiences. Gabriel (2000) suggested:

This theoretical case study expanded findings from previous work (Charney, 2015) where a church-based, inter-professional team told stories about how, through their work, shared meaning, and learning, and facets of leadership became explicit for them. The discoveries that emerged from their telling, unearthed storylines of purpose across the team. They learned more about themselves and their team by describing work scenarios, the conflicts they encountered, and the triumphs they experienced. For many on the team, this was an exercise of great satisfaction; their reflections brought them to a deeper understanding about personal and collective change.

The purpose of this case study was to test where, how, or when learning theories or frameworks aligned with how a rehabilitation school’s inter-professional team’s lived-experience stories revealed learning and adapting. In this chapter, I present the findings from which themes and storylines emerged. The stories shed light into the hearts and minds of the individuals as they relate to how they connect with each other, how they develop and recognize peak learning experiences, how they personally changed, and how the changes that the organization

96 experienced led ways from which they adapted and deepened their capacity to perform their roles and enrich relationships. These narratives bear soulful reflections, some of which were newly realized and expressed, surprising even the tellers themselves as they related their stories.

As the team members’ stories unfolded, their storylines emerged as delicate interweaves of both storytellers and researcher. Listening and telling go hand and hand; the two engaged by both teller and researcher. Hence, the researcher carries her own narrative and captures the essence of what she hears, an “intermesh” complexity that melds both teller’s and listener’s

“learning and knowledge construction” (Schaafsma et al., 2011, p. 2), and is “created simultaneously and often in different variants as several people interact and add particular elements to the narrative” (Gabriel & Connell, 2010, p. 508). It is by collective and creative output that individual and institutional meaning (steeped in memory) are formed, thereby paving a way to deepened awareness and learning (Boje, 2008). The following presents the results of this study including: summaries describing each storyteller; their stories framed by critical events within their work lives that served as containers for story; their emergent, themed storylines; and personal observations that informed interpretations of this organization.

Storyteller Context

The experiences, perspectives, and biases of the storytellers provide context to their stories and their roles within the organization. Each story was analyzed for mentions and connections (i.e., many storytellers either mentioned or connected their story with another team member or to an experience with other team members). Connection(s) with others added further depth regarding their peak moments of learning and adapting; how, when, or why they interacted provided context to the change they experienced, either personally or organizationally.

Figure 4.1 provides a visual of the connections and mentions that unfolded within the stories told. The storylines, depicted in the varying depth of the lines in the graphic, demonstrate

97 reoccurrences of when a participant mentioned their interactions with collaborating or contributing roles outside their own function. For example, those within administration roles mentioned collaborating with or contributing to their staff 25 times whereas the paraprofessional mentioned interacting with therapists twice.

Figure 4.1 Social network map showing frequency of role-based connections and mentions across all interviews. *One teacher referenced generic “staff” 26 times. ** One administrator referenced therapists 16 times. *** One teacher referenced paraprofessionals nine times.

Within the context of this study and within the details of their stories, relevance of each role’s relationships or connections could be determined based on how many times they mentioned another team member. The following stories demonstrate the lived experiences of each storyteller, their stories adding depth and dimension to the connections and mentions shared regarding how they learned and adapted while working within their team.

Nick. Nick, now a special education teacher, began his career at the school two years ago as a paraprofessional. Within four months he was asked to take over a classroom that needed a primary teacher to teach a life-skills, vocational curriculum.

Nick was initially quiet in our interview, although he opened more when we delved into his role and his contributions at the school. He was proud of his role and enjoyed the recognition he received from his peers and administration.

Our discussion focused on Nick’s struggle to maintain balance in a stressful and transitional environment. Shifting from a paraprofessional to a full-time teacher’s role caused him to hold onto self-imposed expectations that were difficult for him to achieve. He lacked confidence, yet worked towards contributing in a way that would be helpful and recognized.

Nick had difficulty coming up with a specific peak learning experience during his tenure, although he did spend time mentioning the positive feedback that he received from staff that recognized his capacity for a more balanced demeanor in his classroom. His confidence increased as he gained experience and received this recognition.

Nick described the organization as, “a family that worked well together.” He experienced an increasing closeness with staff in sharing personal events, and supporting and trusting each other by taking on tasks that may not have been within their roles.

Kathryn. As a speech therapist, Kathryn focuses on her caseload and manages a special project that will implement new, assistive technology4 within the classrooms. She teaches other therapists and teachers to become certified as assistive technology providers, thereby increasing the number of such certifications at the school from only herself to as many as ten. The assistive

4 Assistive technology (AT) is any item, piece of equipment, software program, or product system that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of persons with disabilities” (Assistive Technology Industry Association, n.d., para. 4).

99 technology project was one of great pride for Kathryn. More students will have access to sensory technology for learning and communicating, and a greater number of classrooms will be fully equipped to accommodate the needs of those students as a result of her training.

Kathryn reflected on this project as her peak in learning, a time when she was most creative. She described her experience as being “so creative . . . that I had forgotten myself.”

Working on the project with others, writing and submitting grants, gaining approval to purchase and implement multiple systems, and certifying teachers at the school had her recalling similar feelings she had when she made pottery on a wheel, where she would forget about herself and get lost in the creative aspect of the work. She named it as “transcendent.” Her joy was palpable, her eyes shining as she looked past me and shared moments when she contributed that were deeply meaningful for her.

Kathryn connected her personal change with a swimming metaphor. She learned how to swim later in life and, with practice, is now able to swim for long periods of time. Describing it as “yoga-like”—pushing through the water, breathing in and blowing out—she forgets everything else as she swims, feeling a sense of quiet calm, a place where everything works and is in sync with no anxiety.

Kathryn described her growth as others had, a process of connecting, adapting, and appreciating others’ perspectives, opening herself to relationships and collaboration, and appreciating how her mentorship and teaching enabled younger teachers to grow. She smiled during the entire interview.

Amanda. Amanda is one of the school’s assistant principals, working at the school for over 18 years, first as a paraprofessional, then as a teacher, and, finally, in her current administration role. Amanda described her work as connected and collaborative; decisions about

100 students’ learning and day-to-day well-being are discussed daily and agreed upon across the team.

Amanda shared a moment of peak learning when, while working with a wheelchair- bound student, she realized that he had the potential to increase his mobility. He had been ambulatory prior to experiencing a severe brain injury which left him wheelchair-bound. Since then, he became complacent, content to sit and not use his wheelchair. The team collaborated as to what might motivate him to become ambulatory and realized that he loved snacks; in fact, his eyes would light up when he saw his favorite snack. Amanda and the team began to successfully use snacks to urge him to move.

Another peak moment for Amanda was with a student who had high aversion to sound and touch. When he was in a situation that was loud or when he was touched, he hurt himself by scratching his face. As an infant, his parents needed to swaddle him and bind him to their couch to feed and care for him. However, over time and with positive reinforcement and a gentle approach to avert his reactions to sound and touch, he became more accepting; he allowed others to touch him and be close to him. After months of the team working with him, his mother visited and was shocked to see him standing and smiling. She worried that he would fall or try to move away, but Amanda and the teachers assured her that he was now able to stand for over 45 minutes. They encouraged her to go to him. When she did, he reached out to hug her, the first hug they had ever shared.

Amanda described her role as “multi-therapist, multi-year, multi-teacher.” She went on to say:

It just took all of us working together, just really working on de-sensitizing to different things: touch, sound, smell, everything. But we were able to get him to a point where he was lovingly engaging with his family, and it’s something they hadn’t had prior to him being 14.

101

She explained that special education was not about following a set path of requirements or solutions; it was more about flexibility and creativity, finding common ground with other team members and parents, learning from each other, and practicing new ways of connecting to address each student’s needs. She described this as having “the patience to figure out the puzzle that would be [the student] that day,” and, “if that were me, if I were in that position, if someone were to take my voice and my abilities away, hopefully this is what I would see from someone assisting me.”

Jordan. Jordan approached our interview with a willingness to share, and he was concise and direct with his stories. Although his tenure as Director of Student Services with the school was shorter than the overall tenure of his colleagues (1.5 years), he had a deep background in special education.

Jordan shared how he observed the team working with each other and making decisions about students’ care. At first, the team tended to meet reactively, generally following an incident.

As the administration implemented new processes and expectations, he noticed the team shifting toward a more collaborative and proactive approach. Change was now viewed as positive and exciting. Jordan described it as a “rejuvenation” within the team, a surge of energy working with each other to develop systems, test new processes, and apply their learning and expertise to new projects.

Jordan described each team member’s role, the ways they contributed their talent to the work of the school, and how their ways of thinking or doing provide broader perspectives for getting work done. He values the therapists’ or residential managers’ diverse views; their perspectives as to the needs of the school adds weight to how work is connected. He sees his

102 leadership as equal to others, not asking a staff member to do a task that he has not done or would not do. He described this as “leading from behind.”

Mary. A special education teacher with a six-year tenure at the school—her first five as a paraprofessional—Mary approached our interview warmly and welcoming. She began by saying that, although her beginning years were stressful, she acclimated to the school’s culture and is now enjoying her work.

Mary’s learning peaks when she participates in ongoing collaboration with other team members, working together to determine what works best for each student, each day. She is proud of how she and others work both individually and collectively toward meeting each student’s potential. Mary shared: “You learn how to adapt everything to the way that particular student needs it to be done and it’s amazing how successful they can be.” Although adjustments are made, each student, and how he or she learns, becomes a model for her to adapt to others’ learning.

Mary’s confidence grew as she increased her competency. She described her growth metaphorically as a rainbow brightening after a rainstorm. She contributes more at meetings and is less fearful about stating her opinions or advocating for a student. Her style reflects her growth over the years and she named it as “cooperative . . . liking to work with everyone . . . get[ting] their opinion and what they think . . . before I take charge of something.”

Mary felt that she needed to unlearn what was taught during college. Adapting to the surroundings, being flexible to meet each student where they are developmentally in the moment, and readapting is a way of life in her and others’ classrooms. Diverse approaches extend to working with staff, therapists, and administration; managing, establishing rapport, and mutually agreeing on teaching or care methods occurs repeatedly in the classroom. Adapting to

103 others’ perspectives becomes vitally important when working with parents in determining their children’s care. Mary also emphasized that parents viewed their child’s needs through their family lens and have insights into what is best for their child. Having all perspectives inform decisions about a student’s experience is critically important.

Nathan. Nathan has been a nurse for six years with additional responsibilities for the last three years as Director of the school’s Health Center. He immediately shared how grateful he was when, as a new employee, he was invited to accompany psychiatric rounds, observe, and ask questions. He shared insights from months of listening and learning from the team of therapists, teachers, and psychiatrists as a peak time of learning. He described these as his “aha” moments and went on to describe, “This is really amazing to have all of these people from different backgrounds coming together to talk about the kids.”

Nathan described his growth at the Health Center as something like raising a child. He defined himself as firm and confident in his decisions, yet balancing give-and-take when working with his team. His keen observations of his staff helped him determine how much they can handle in their roles, how he can help them grow, and how to lead them by example. An educator at heart, Nathan guides health center nurses through positive, authentic learning and reassurance, sharing the learning from his own earlier mistakes.

When he first began his career at the school he was enthusiastic to make changes about students’ admission processes. He pushed back (often) about the type of student that was being admitted and whether the school was equipped with the resources necessary to serve the student well. He realized that he needed to restrain his desire to make immediate changes, that he needed to balance his enthusiasm to make changes with the readiness of the organizational culture.

104

Douglas. Douglas, the Director of Admissions, began working at the school earlier as a paraprofessional and then, within a year of starting, transitioned to working for four months as a case load manager in student services. During his four-month case load manager assignment, the

Director of Admissions retired and Douglas was subsequently hired into the admissions directorship role. He has led the admissions process for the school since.

As gatekeeper for the student admission process, Douglas manages how much and how efficiently revenue is brought into the school. This demands collaboration with school and hospital leadership, and with the Technology, Finance, and Marketing departments.

Douglas shared that his peak moment of learning was about how to effectively engage with team members who he did not directly manage, working with them to first agree to, and then accomplish, tasks. He educated himself about how each team member’s role and contributions directly affected students’ admission processes and how the team members, working together, could impact that process more effectively. He offered:

I learned how to use the admissions process to mobilize people across the organization. For example, the maintenance function became more aware how their work directly impacted a student’s admissions process by understanding that rooms and utilities needed to be in perfect working order before a student moved in. I was able to expand on that understanding throughout the organization, realizing that, to not only make sure that a particular task is done for one student coming in, but to also understand in an overall [connected] sense, all tasks completed improve our program.

He expanded his reach by continually emphasizing how everything from clean residential rooms to effective medical record processing helped the school remain resilient, both from a financial and a marketing standpoint. Collaborating in these efforts also gave Douglas a sense of pride:

It made me feel like I had clout. It made me feel like I had authority, but in a different sense, so that I could get things done. And I felt really good that I was developing a reputation [as] someone who gets things done.

105

By increasing awareness of how Admissions adds value to the school, and by collaborating with and mobilizing team members, Douglas built a reputation as someone who could also help others with their own projects and goals, and as someone who could influence change. His description of working together presented a picture of interconnection across the organization, one that developed value and respect.

Douglas showed vulnerability in telling a story about his growth and in using a metaphor to describe how he has changed. He views his role, and how he needs to maintain a steady stream of students, as like being in either a drought or a torrential rain. Referrals for possible student admissions may pile up waiting for review while current students have already exited. The challenge is to move the students through the system efficiently so there is always a consistent and critical balance. The bucket fills little by little with students and Douglas leads conversations with the team that admits or denies admission; this helps others see the human who is beyond the application. He shared that “I’ve learned how to be more tactful in explaining the ins and outs of a potential new student to people so that they give it a chance. So, the bucket stays there, and it gets a little full.” Douglas’ work is a balanced dance of filling the bucket too quickly, tipping it over, or allowing it to go dry.

The Director of Admissions role requires nimble engagement with multiple constituents.

Douglas told a story about how he is required to hold opposing views in balance and make an agreement that works collectively. In pre-admissions meetings, administration and clinicians meet to decide the logistics of the student’s Individualized Educational Plan (IEP), a document that indicates specific services and instruction the student will receive while at the school. He said:

My perspective needs to be fluid . . . I can’t just come from one perspective. I can’t just come from the financial perspective because then that would mean I want to pad these

106

services as much as possible . . . So I have to be able to change my perspective and educate others . . . I have to be well aware of at least four or five different perspectives at any given moment during these conversations.

Over time, Douglas has had to unlearn his personal attachment to families. At the beginning of his tenure, he viewed his role as someone who “sells” the school, providing incoming families with service expectations that may or may not have played out when the student was admitted. A student’s care shifts day to day depending on their needs or ability to engage.

Cindy. Cindy began as a paraprofessional directly out of college, having earned her elementary education degree with a specialty in special education. Within a year as a paraprofessional, she was approached to consider becoming a full-time teacher. Taking on some administrative tasks during her years of teaching, paved her way to an Assistant Principal promotion, a role she currently holds. She has worked at the school for over 18 years.

Cindy was enthusiastic in telling her stories; her passion for the students and the school was evident. She described a peak learning experience which included a child who was highly aggressive and destructive, someone whom many on the team had labeled as difficult and unworkable. Cindy, and a few other team members, believed that he (as well as any child) could make progress and change when trust is established and the child becomes comfortable with teachers and processes. With time and focus, and by working on building his trust with many on the team and gaining confidence, he changed, grew his capacity to self-regulate, and became capable to the point where he became a school volunteer.

Cindy equated growing in her role like climbing a mountain to reach the summit. She has learned a lot during her tenure at the school and, with the support of her team and the principal, she felt she could continue to grow as she pursues additional educational certifications.

107

One of the most powerful stories Cindy shared was one where she shifted her perspective to another’s while working with student classified with EBD (emotional behavior disorder). Her earlier mindset was that children changed behavior through consequences, generally by removing privileges. There was one highly aggressive and manipulative student Cindy felt needed to have privileges taken away in order for her to learn to behave. A peer explained that people had tried that, and nothing changed for the student, suggesting instead that, perhaps, by not taking anything away and just being with the student during the aggressive moments, keeping her safe, gaining her trust, and meeting her where she was emotionally, she would eventually learn that she was in a trustful, loving environment with teachers who cared for her.

Cindy decided to apply that method and, with patience and practice, the student eventually became calmer and more trusting. Cindy has since used this method successfully with other students and has come to appreciate what she learned from that initial experience.

Cindy feels more relaxed in her work since unlearning the structure and organization that she was taught in college. She echoed others’ sentiments that a one-size-fits-all curriculum does not work with their students, noticing that students respond more fully to having choices and that teachers’ frustration levels decrease as they adapt to what the student needs. She shared:

It’s okay for them to only learn for five minutes today and maybe 10 minutes tomorrow, or it’s okay for them to not learn at all today because today’s not the day that they’re capable of learning, that they need to just work on themselves and that tomorrow might be a better day for them . . . even kids in Special Ed in public schools, it’s not available for them to be able to do that.

Paul. A paraprofessional at the school for the last eight years, Paul approached our conversation with interest. A private school art teacher prior to his tenure at the school (and a currently practicing artist), he decided to pursue a paraprofessional opportunity that his brother

(who worked within the rehabilitation medical facility) mentioned. Although he had no previous experience working with special needs students, he decided he would give it a try.

108

During his first two months, Paul thought several times he would leave what was initially an overwhelming job. Eventually, however, he began to enjoy the work and recalled a peak learning experience during those beginning months when, while attending a new-hire orientation class, he participated in an exercise where the participants were put into situations that mirrored the experiences of disabled students. Exercises included simulations for being hard of hearing, or blindness, or being unable to walk. The instructor guided the new hires in performances of simple tasks as if the participants were disabled (e.g., binding an arm behind their back or wearing a blindfold). Paul learned that there were ranges within disabilities. He shared: “As much as I thought I knew about disabilities, there [are] sort of little subtle differences. You could say, ‘Oh, this person is blind,’ but that means really a lot of stuff . . . that was one of the most eye-opening things.”

Paul’s role required him to accompany students to their therapies (physical, occupational, music, speech). During those times, he has learned the intricacies of various therapies and how to acclimate his approach to each student’s needs. He referred to his responsibility as “mak[ing] it happen,” assisting students as they work on their studies and move through their day.

Paul’s role requires him to shift his focus, adapting to other students or areas as needed, although the overall program goal is to remain with one or two students for consistency’s sake.

This movement and shifting required Paul to remain agile and open to meeting the needs of the students, teachers, and sometimes parents, moment by moment. He explained:

You must be aware of that big space that you’re in with all these individuals. They’re all completely different, and it’s almost like they’re all spiraling in all these different directions, and you must be aware of every single one of them.

Paul described himself as “involved,” someone who needs to “be in the mix . . . and not just the mix with [my] own students.” He further explained that, “There’s almost like a

109 concentric space that moves out from your student into the spaces of the other students. As well as being in tune with your student, you [need to] be in tune with all of them.”

Time spent with students with varying levels of need helped Paul become aware that the ways he learned to raise children, discipline them, or praise them were entirely different within the school. Students often lashed out, hit, kicked, or screamed in ways that would not be tolerated in a traditional school environment. Typical automatic responses must be kept in check.

Paul needed to unlearn his instinctual reactions when faced with such behaviors. He said:

You almost feel angry, and you feel like you want to just do something, or say something, but here you can’t. You must learn that it’s not like the rest of the world, and you’re not dealing with people who will understand you saying, “You’re not supposed to do that.”

Paul spoke about how the years he has spent and his experiences at the school have changed how he acts in the “real world.” He shared that:

The fundamental thing that has changed in my life is that I just don’t even regard that stuff as relevant as much as I used to . . . when I hear people getting petty about things that they’re all worked up about, I think to myself, “Oh, man, they have no idea.”

Lori. Lori was drawn to the school by her interest in brain injuries in children and adolescents. Now, 20 years later, and as Director of Rehabilitation, she interacts with all members of the inter-professional team at the school and is responsible for therapies administered within both the school and the medical facility.

Lori shared a story about a wise mentor whom she had earlier in her career who suggested that, when she interviewed a parent, principal, or potential services customer, to begin the meeting from a place of curiosity and interest in the other person’s needs. She practices this technique and has learned that, while planning for rehabilitation, she and the other party are able to gain agreements smoothly and swiftly. She more fully understands others’ perspectives and the value of:

110

Taking the point of view of the person you’re speaking to so that you can use their opinion and their perception to try to steer them closer to understanding what it is that you’re trying to get across. It also makes me, I think, forgiving with other managers . . . I understand that when one of my therapists does something it has an impact.

Lori metaphorically equated her personal change to the changing seasons. At times, there is fullness and passion when processes and people are growing, those transitions into summer and fall when she can sit back and enjoy the view. Budget season is winter for her, a time of low energy, limited creativity, and task-oriented meetings.

Lori was excited by the prospect that, as she faces her last decade of working, she can mentor others, see them grow and flourish as she feels she has in her career. She appreciates her personal growth and learning as it contributes to her ability to work with a diverse group of people each year during the creation of Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs). IEP development is a tedious process with multiple inputs; teachers, parents, therapists, and school districts all have a say in the plan details. Even when the team thinks they are finished with the process, there remain pieces of the report undone. Lori felt that this would be an area that, with her years of experience and practice, she learned to hold the balance between what is considered done and what needs to be examined further. For example, during a recent IEP planning process, she assembled an audit team to delve into assessing the report more fully. What they discovered was that some important areas were lacking in detail and congruency that could have become a detriment for current or exiting students’ educational or post-educational living support. She further explained:

Consistency is of paramount importance for them and their programming . . . everybody must be on the same page. The speech pathologist must go with [what] the occupational therapist is doing and the occupational therapist must use the communication style that the speech pathologist has set up and we all have to communicate and educate, the paraprofessionals and the group home staff, so that everybody else is carrying out those programs.

111

Kathy. Kathy, an occupational therapist for about a year, declared that working on a team was (and continues to be) her peak learning experience. Presenting herself in a quiet and confident manner, she valued the collaboration she has with those who have more experience working with the students, and she depends on the feedback received. She described her growth as like a plant or flower, emergent and developing.

Kathy shares office space with physical therapists and values the interactions she has with them, learning new ways of how to work with students and the therapies that are required.

Kathy explained:

It has been amazing to see how much more comfortable that makes me working with that population and knowing I am doing the right thing, responding to things correctly in a therapeutic way . . . it makes me have more pride in the work that I am doing.

She shared a story about shifting perspectives and how, when developing IEPs, the need to appreciate and incorporate parents’ input. She learned to understand how parents must feel having their child live away from them and entrusting the care and learning to others. She has observed the value of “give and take” during those conversations and how, when parents are part of the solution, they are more likely to be supportive in the end.

Len. Len, a special education teacher who began as a residential counselor over seven years ago, described his experience differently than others who met with me. He spoke about working at the school as a practice of survival and continuous learning. He described harsh realities while working with students in various stages of development and capability, equating the work as “being in battle, being one and just figuring out how to survive.” He continued to stress how the only way to get through the day and feel whole was to depend on and support each team member. He added that he focused on, “preventing injuries to myself like concussions, where I’d be unable to do the rest of the day . . . it was a constant level of stress.”

112

Len views his work as constantly changing and adapting to day-by-day situations and the students’ changing needs. Special attention is required for each situation and each student, his story often equating to the stresses of being in an army troop:

You just learn how to shut off non-essential parts of thinking so you can focus and maintain through the day. I . . . learned how to kind of control stress reaction and how to adjust [my] sense of normalcy so [I] can just make it to the next day.

Survival took priority over pride in the work that Len performed. Dependency on team members became essential. He described partnering with several other teachers as they worked together to help control one student:

It was tough because it’s a bunch of guys, there’s competitiveness, but I think each of us had gotten to a point where we’ve reached our limit and like our patience and our willingness to just, like, figure it out on our own. Pride just kind of took a back-road because to survive you need to [be and work together].

Pat. A science and math teacher at the school, Pat began her tenure five years ago, after departing a public-school role. Having no special education experience, she shared how she immediately learned that teaching the student population at the school in the same way as she had in her prior role would not work. Pat explained:

I thought I could teach like I [did] in high school. How sadly that changed, real fast. Now I have to come up with different ideas. I had to really think outside the box, which is really hard for me, to think outside the box [about] how . . . you reach these kids with knowledge, and how do you get them to communicate what they know that’s inside their heads? I had to really dig in with a lot of people just to learn: How do people communicate with these kids? How do they know where they’re at?

Pat described herself as someone who prefers to not be the center of attention. She dove into real-time on-the-job training by learning from therapists and teachers on her team about how to reach her students in ways where both she and her students could experience success. As she tells it:

I think I’m a team player . . . I like to help where I can. I don’t want the praises, I don’t want “great job,” you know? I want to be able to help. We’re all supposed to be this huge team working together for a common goal, or a greater goal. And I think that takes all of

113

us down to staff, even to students, like I think it takes everyone to make that team happen.

It was through her deep connection with other team members who had worked with the students longer, that she learned how to adapt her science teaching so each student could complete a lesson within his or her own capabilities. She went on to say, “I don’t think I’d ever go back [to] teaching the same way because I had to unlearn that just because they may seem normal, or everything looks normal, everybody learns differently.” Her practice of adapting to others’ needs has also helped her deepen her awareness in her private life. She explained, “it’s made me open to the little things that I don’t necessarily pick up, or little cues that you don’t necessarily pick up in your everyday life.”

Ethan. Developing both professionally and personally over his 15 years as an art teacher,

Ethan learned as others had that adapting to each student’s capability was paramount to how a lesson was experienced. It took energy, patience, and perseverance to shift teaching plans moment by moment. Ethan described it as “a constant metamorphosis or adaptation that you have to be willing to accept.”

Ethan referred to his peak learning experience as one when he began his tenure at the school. He described it as, “an eye-opener . . . kind of tak[ing] what you learn from the outside world, and completely flip[ping] it around in some ways.” Working with students who had needs was new for Ethan. He had much to learn regarding how to interact and adjust to each student as they, “have such challenging things to overcome, whether it’s behaviorally, or just some of their needs, as far as physical disabilities . . . you have to constantly be sort of shifting your paradigm a little bit for each individual student.

He summed up his success with the collaboration and learning he and his team members share as they work with the students. His class is one of many that the students experience, so

114 there is an important emphasis on being able to adapt quickly as students enter his classroom; events throughout the day (or evening prior) could influence how a student approaches an art project on any day. As Ethan put it, “what works for one student, you can’t just automatically expect it’s going to work for the next student, or even their classmate. They’re all individuals; they’re all unique.”

Monica. Monica, a special education teacher at the school for the last three years, shared several stories about how adapting played a major role in her tenure as teacher. Like others, she reiterated how the tools and techniques she had learned in her past educational experiences were ineffective for the students in her classroom. This understanding challenged who she thought she was as a trained teacher, as well as her capacity to remain centered while teaching.

Monica expressed, “You think, ‘oh, I’m a patient person’ . . . [but] I’ve really had to modify my plans . . . because they can be very disruptive.” Her personal adaptations (along with how her classroom staff adapted) moved her to pay more attention to her own capabilities and growth.

As she grew, Monica noticed that she became calmer and happier with teaching and interacting with her staff and students. She noticed that she personally and professionally changed while working at the school. She expressed, “my classroom is amazing. We have grown a lot together in just a few years that I’ve been here.”

Addison. As the school’s principal, Addison both manages and interacts with all team members. Her journey to becoming part of the school began early in her own education when she

115 became grounded as a student in Waldorf Education5 philosophy, through which she developed her beliefs regarding how an educational institution could and should be managed.

After her tenures in both teaching and part-time administration, Addison was asked to move into the principal’s role following the then current principal’s retirement. She had recently completed her doctoral degree in education, so the transition was well-timed for her to transition into a principal’s role.

Addison is drawn to learning and building learning communities; she is well-connected with the staff and finds ways to remain connected to teaching. She described a teaching philosophy and environment she wishes to focus on and build at the school called Gentle

Teaching. She described Gentle Teaching as:

A nonviolent approach to building relationships, and making the experiences for our children meaningful and mutually rewarding for both the students and the staff; and it’s not based on punishment. It’s just based on building that relationship, building that trust, so that the students are ready to learn and ready to grow with you. Until you’ve established that, you can’t move beyond trying to gain any skill sets.

It is with that philosophy that Addison envisioned how the school will grow and thrive as the overall rehabilitation home and school organization grows and changes. Its philosophy extends beyond the teacher-with-student relationship. Building trust and making the work environment meaningful and safe for both students and staff enable all to adapt and share in the school’s (and the overall organization’s) success as new systems and regulations are implemented. It develops a learning environment where staff can co-create processes and new ways of teaching without judgement, while fully using their creative senses.

5 Waldorf schools offer a developmentally appropriate, experiential, and academically rigorous approach to education. They integrate the arts in all academic disciplines for children from preschool through 12th grade to enhance and enrich learning. Waldorf Education aims to inspire life-long learning in all students and to enable them to fully develop their unique capacities (Waldorf Education, 2015).

116

This is important to her, as she feels that the school should be a place where all,

“continue to grow . . . that if we are teachers, we are also learners, and that we have to continue that thought process, and it’s through their professional development we do as a team.”

Addison described a time when she put that growth mindset to work. She assigned a task to a sub-set of teachers to create new activities and ways of teaching that would help students learn at their own pace or at their own comfort levels. The group videotaped demonstrating the new processes. Addison brought the rest of the team together, divided them further into groups to view the videos and assess how well the activities worked or how they might further adjust them in the future. She went on to describe the experience:

We had the groups each write up a task analysis for [what] that activity looks like. And within the groups, you could see them collaborate, and figuring it out, and how they each interpreted this task differently, and what they would put on it was different, and then we brought it to the larger group, and we showed [each] finished task analysis, and then everyone reacted to [it]. “Well, I would have put this here,” and that type of thing.

Addison observed a powerful energy that emanated throughout the team as they worked together. As a new experience for them, they had never been given the opportunity to co-create new processes; they realized, through their collective experience, that their students’ learning and the way they taught must shift with what is needed in the moment. She shared:

You could see the whole room having “aha” moments, really understanding why it’s so important to have this experience, and to understand that this is what the kids are going through. If we, as the professionals, can’t figure it out and can’t get on the same page, how do we think the kids are feeling if we’re all giving our individual message to them? I think that those are the experiences that are most important, when I don’t have to tell them what the answer is, but naturally it comes out that that’s what I wanted them to [learn]. But, if I had told them that, it wouldn’t have had the same meaning as them all coming together [and learning together].

Storylines of Change

In reviewing 16 interviews, 13 participants reflected on how their experiences working at the school affected them personally and ways in which the organization also changed. They

117 described deep, meaningful shifts in how they perceived themselves, others, and the work they performed. They noticed changes relating to who they were before beginning their work at the school compared to who they became as they grew deeper in in their work, and the shifts within the organization regarding new ways of teaching and collaborating. They also described how

(and what) they learned and unlearned and how both learning and unlearning deepened their capacity to work with each other and changed how they taught. Beginning with how the participants’ personal lives changed (followed by organizational change, Gentle Teaching and learning, meeting where they are, adapting, learning, and unlearning), the following recounts the storylines unfolded within the participants’ tellings.

Personal change. Personal change was attributed to growth peaks not only for themselves, but also for their students and the environment in which they worked. Their introduction to the realities of their work and the environment in which they conducted their work perpetuated a tangible shift from the technical skills they learned while in their educational training to what was demanded in real-time, as well as a shift in perspective regarding how they lived in their personal lives.

Their work lives and personal lives began to mirror each other in many instances. They learned empathy and understanding in new ways; they saw others through new lenses and engaged with them differently. Assessments of “other” and “different” diminished as they saw themselves differently as they drew closer to their students’ experiences. Amanda explained:

I can see growth within myself. I can see my improvement in the flexibility, the improvement in the understanding. The empathy that goes into not having a voice and helping them gain a voice to be able to communicate. I guess thinking that tomorrow, if my voice was taken away and my physical abilities were taken away, I would hope that someone who interacted with me would have years of experience and the patience to try to figure out the puzzle that would be me that day.

118

This was also evident in others’ ways of being and doing that were distinct from their own, so-called “normality.” It became an important aspect to Pat’s growth:

It’s made me open to the little things that I [may] not necessarily pick up, or little cues that you don’t necessarily pick up in your everyday life; like: Is this person really listening when they’re staring off over here? which they really are, but that’s they’re way of how they have to listen.

Personal change transcended learning in the traditional sense. Many started noticing themselves differently; they saw how fundamentally pure and joyful many of their students were in their daily interactions, untainted by external influences of shame or ignorance. Views of life lightened up. Assertions they may have made in the past about how burdensome life events could be or might have been, were far less relevant while working at the school. Paul said:

When I hear people getting petty about things that they’re all worked up about, I think to myself, “Oh, man, they have no idea.” I go in there, there’s a young man who has disabilities from head to toe, mentally disabled, blindness, physical skeletal issues.

And he gets up in the morning, and he has this big smile on his face, and I go, “Okay, it’s going to be a good day, because he’s happy, everything’s cool.” He doesn’t have anything to reference to. He can’t go, “Okay, when I this, ” but in spite of his issues, he just can be so happy, and just jump and play, and want to be out, and do things.

Realizing what was thought to be important or critical in the past became less important; awareness of simple moments mattered most. Paul further explained:

I just don’t even regard that stuff as relevant as much as I used to. I was just like everybody else, and oh gosh, you know, everything was an issue, and everything made me uptight, but since I’ve been here, these are real issues, and these are real situations, and these are real people with real issues. The rest of the world doesn’t have to deal with this. They just have to deal with their peaceful world without that sort of thing coming in.

Another facet that emerged was learning what it was like to live with and embody a disability. Onboarding training required for new school employees provided opportunities to role play—what it is like to be blind (for example)—and to experience the senses and emotions that occur in such a situation. While blindfolded, trainees were asked to complete tasks such as

119 navigating hallways and classrooms, or completing a puzzle or project that would typically be part of the students’ curriculum. Paul put it this way:

I think it made me more sensitive to the people that I was working with. Not that I wasn’t sensitive before; I think as a person, particularly artists, are kind of into themselves, and you come into a place like this, you can’t do that. You can’t be into yourself. You can’t think that you are right . . . So, it just had a really amazing change over the past eight years.

Using metaphor was a creative way for participants to describe their experiences. More dimensionality emerged through metaphors that participants shared about their change. Ethan shared his growth as subtle, yet noticeable, “something like a tree . . . starts off with seed, and starts off with kind of the central part of the tree, and then after a while more, little branches start kind of popping up . . . kind of an exponential kind of thing.” A gradual, yet deeper, awareness of new learning was noticed as an element of personal change. Kathy offered her metaphor of changing as “like a plant or flower . . . that you might need another stem or another leaf or another petal to kind of help you meet the needs of the students here.” She saw that as she worked with the students, the students became the teachers; their needs and diverse ways of learning opened her up to growing and changing her approaches to teaching.

Organizational change. Facets of organizational change were also shared in stories. The rehabilitation home’s administrative leadership changed; the former CEO retired and new staff at the top level was put into place within the last year. This caused some concern throughout the organization regarding changes in communication, financial goals, and overall process. Former leadership managed the organization differently in that they held decision-making close to the senior level, involving staff less than many would have preferred. This often led to reactive problem-solving, which tended to demand more meetings and fixes after the matter rather than enabling team members to be proactive and co-create solutions that mitigate risks and potential problems.

120

With changing leadership came fresh ways of leading and new processes and, with that, the organizational culture shifted. Team members began to change when and how they collaborated and made decisions. Commitment for individual empowerment was expected, and individuals were encouraged to accomplish tasks independently. Less time was spent rehashing insignificant or unrelated topics that, in turn, created roadblocks to solving problems.

Jordan recalled that when he “first started everything was reactive. We met a lot after things happened. Very rarely did we meet prior to things happening. Then we got this group of people; now it’s a regular, consistent part of the agency.” He added that “it just feels better working here and it looks better and I think it’s better for the students.” Jordan also noticed that empowerment expected by the new administration gave him time to focus on the critical parts of his job. He said:

We don’t need to waste a lot of time on meetings. The meetings [are] for the people who could impact the change, and they’re time-limited. Get them done . . . I like that. And he’s—[the new CEO]—really pushing to have that across the campus. I go to two-thirds fewer meetings than I used to go to.

Organizational change has slowly evolved over the last year with the advent of new administration. As often occurs in an organization that has been in existence for decades, the school’s culture was grounded in specific beliefs and practices. With time, further research, and education, new thinking was embraced by the team members; practices improved for how students were taught and how team members collaborated. Some staff struggled with the changes while others adapted. Amanda touched on how the changes impacted the team:

A lot of changes have been happening, and yes, we’ve run against people not wanting to change. Unfortunately, that is part of life. Nobody really wants to change, let’s be honest, but the only thing consistent is change. But changing some of the things about the school and how it’s run and what the expectations are now, and really trying to beef up the program, make it better, those are all pieces that just flow together in terms of better leadership’s . . . hopefully bring[ing] up the bar and really mak[ing] people work a little harder, a little more cohesively together, [to] be able to lead their teams, as well.

121

Ability to change, whether personally or organizationally, requires that individuals and teams are aware of, and open to, the possibility that previous knowledge or practices may need to be set aside, unlearned, or relearned. Former practices may not serve the organization or its individuals effectively as new technology or educational processes became available. This realization that former knowledge may not serve the current model required individuals to unlearn practices or knowledge to which they were attached, and to be open to embracing new ways and practices.

These change experiences kindled a collective awareness in what team members had learned or practiced in the past that may not work for what they or the organization needed now to be successful. Being attached to prior knowledge or processes might not address students’ needs on a specific day or in a specific moment. Teaching methods (like Gentle Teaching) and how teachers connected with students shifted the overall way learning occurred.

Gentle Teaching. Gentle Teaching, developed by McGee and Menolascino (1991) incorporates principles of interdependence, companionship, community, and caregiving within its teaching practices. It is an alternative way to educate children and adults “who reside at the very edge of family and community life” (p. 8). McGee and Menolascino (1991) presented

Gentle Teaching principles as:

• The first step in creating feelings of companionship • A set of strategies that encourages unconditional valuing and human engagement • An approach that calls for mutual transformation • An ongoing way of interacting • A prelude to a psychology of interdependence. (p. 8)

Gentle Teaching USA (n.d.) describes the approach as developing Cultures of

Gentleness, offering compassion as an “alternative to reactive and restrictive practices that are commonplace in working with those who present with complex needs” (para. 3). Teachers,

122 parents, and caregivers who espouse to Gentle Teaching use the philosophy’s methods to nurture, teach, and sustain a sense of companionship, connectedness, and community for those who have experienced an existence of disconnectedness, isolation, and loneliness.

Gentle Teaching is based on the premise that all individuals have a right to feel safe and valued in their homes, with their families and caregivers, and at their job, school, or other forms of meaningful day activities. Those who are most vulnerable require predictability and structure in their day. They also thrive while experiencing interactions from others that are overwhelmingly positive and uplifting rather than critical and demanding. Physical, postural, and body language-focused, those who practice Gentle Teaching’s principles meet the person with whom they are interacting in ways that embody care and connection. For example, teachers will go to the student who is crouched in the corner, crouch down with them, and encourage the student to work on a school activity where they are sitting rather than forcing (or even strongly encouraging) them to return to their desk. Gentle touches to a shoulder or soothing voices are used as calming practices rather than trying to negotiate or impress upon the student’s disruption by using physical or vocal force.

Gentle Teaching and learning. The shift of introducing Gentle Teaching principles in the way staff worked with students also changed the staff’s learning development and how they adapted; it became both an outward and inward change. These two concepts (Gentle Teaching and learning) prompted me to connect the two as they influenced how both teaching and learning occurred across the organization.

Rule following, curriculum adherence, and strict processes became less important in determining the ways staff members taught or interacted with students and with each other.

Monica noticed how Gentle Teaching practices significantly changed how she adapted with

123 students. She shared that teaching was “very individualized . . . that was big for me. We’re not just doing like one lesson, and, ‘Here are the materials.’ . . . [Rather] it’s one lesson, and, ‘Here are ten different ways to do it.’” Ethan agreed that being able to shift direction in the moment is a key element in his teaching. For him, the day is:

A constant metamorphosis, or adaptation that you have to kind of be willing to accept. If you come in to work here at the school with the idea that, “Oh, I’m going to put my ideas on the students,” or something like that, well, it’s not going to be a particularly successful school day.

Positively engaging, flexing, and building trust while partnering in learning deepened the staffs’ ability to meet students on equal ground, as well as with each other. As Amanda said:

I think with every student you do learn. You come in with this ideal that you have all this schooling behind you and this is what it’s going to look like. The first rule of working here is [that] it’s not going to look like that.

This way of teaching, caregiving, and learning culturally shifted, or in some cases deepened, the practices that provide a solid base for helping individuals (both students and staff) experience companionship, care, and connectedness. It served as a learning foundation for adapting to other models of connecting and teaching that are specific to the needs of the individual or the team.

Meeting them where they are. Gentle Teaching practices meet individuals where they currently are—emotionally, physically, and intellectually. Meeting individuals where they are, is a movement toward a person’s needs rather than away from them; it is a practice of noticing others, acknowledging and rewarding their needs and accomplishments, with less retribution or reprimand. Redirecting to an alternate activity or stimuli helps a student regulate emotional or physical outbursts. For example, if a student curses, a teacher replies with soothing, loving words; if a student uses physical force (punches, kicks, or runs and screams), a teacher might respond with a soft touch and a quiet voice.

124

The method leads with love, understanding, and a willingness to meet others at their level, thereby building an exchange of trust and willingness to try new things. Addison described how Gentle Teaching changed the teaching and learning culture at the school:

It’s really changing everyone’s thought process, and letting them know that you’re not letting kids get away with things, but [that] you’re sharing this experience with them, and if that means that you go on the floor in the corner, where they’re sitting, and do the activity over there, that’s what you do. You don’t require them to come, and follow your rules, necessarily.

Adapting. Capacity to adapt (and to practice adaptability) is foundationally essential within a complex organization (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009). Team members must be able to exercise their ability to create, make decisions, and initiate dynamic changes within an unfixed, unstriated environment, one that allows them agency to “depend on one another, compromise and cooperate . . . share ideas and knowledge [for] ideas to merge, diverge, and elaborate. The outcome [then] is adaptability (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009, p. 641).

As mentioned earlier, Kotter’s (2012) guiding coalition concept demonstrates how, when team members are enabled to work together to develop new processes and systems in service of their organization’s goals and their clients’ needs, it increases their capacity to innovate and adapt. With practice, the team members deepen their capacity to learn, adapt, and strengthen relationships. This connection is vital to being able to adapt to ongoing change and learning to learn. Learning to learn is foundational to deepening the capacity to adapt, thereby positioning adapting as a key element to learning to learn (Mezirow, 1994).

Developing trust and respect, and adapting to shifting needs were paramount to successes the team members experienced. Cindy shared that, “it’s about building that trust and that respect, and that took a long time for me to shift [to that]. It took seeing it happen and seeing [that] it works over and over and over again.” Amanda described her adaptive practice as, “giv[ing] them a voice in what they were learning and how they were going to learn it. With every kid it’s a new

125 puzzle and you just get a little bit better each time.” Adapting, and the outcomes noticed while practicing, were something that Amanda saw as both positive and rewarding. She claimed,

“learn[ing] how to adapt everything to the way that particular student needs it to be done, it’s amazing how successful [the students] can be.”

Douglas (the Director of Admissions) crafts students’ development plans for student services and, as he works on them, notices that, by practicing adapting, he can accommodate multiple views and needs. He explains, “In those meetings, my perspective needs to be fluid really. I can’t just come from one perspective. I can’t just come from the financial perspective

. . . I have to think about [the other person’s] perspective.” As Amanda worked with Douglas on developing student plans, she also saw how maintaining a fluid, flexible stance opened space for understanding and acceptance, as well as provided an opportunity for her to learn, adapt, and improve her approach. She noted that:

Everyone is . . . passionate about [the students] and what services they see working, what services they don’t, [and] that they’re not making progress fast enough. There are a lot of those components, and you would expect them to advocate for [the student] and I absolutely agree with that. Sometimes it can be difficult to listen to because it really makes you feel like you are not doing a great job, but you do have to listen and then step out of it almost clinically and say, “Okay, what can I do to improve?

The capacity to adapt became a catalyst for unlearning old ways to make room for new learning. The stories they shared revealed their peaks of learning and unlearning and how, with practice and awareness, a sense of themselves and others, and the experience of collaboration deepened.

Learning and unlearning. Dewey (1938/1997) presented learning as a “moving force”

(p. 38) that transports the learner into the future. Learning informs new learning; it is interrelated, generative, and connected. Dewey’s (1938/1997) philosophy focused on opening new pathways for the learner through their practice, awareness, reflection, and insight which then affects shifts

126 in views of their world and how they act in their world. Learning promotes change, especially in those moments when change is a significant event that is noticed and revered as life-changing.

Recognizing when unlearning occurs—or needs to occur—is also important to individuals’ noticing. As reality changes, former learning may become obsolete and therefore no longer be in service of an individuals’ current situation. Knowledge, concepts, and practices may need to be unlearned so space can be made to adapt to change and learn anew (Hedberg, 1981).

The participants reflected upon and shared stories about their learning and unlearning as they experienced change.

Learning. Given that this study was conducted in a school, it is not surprising that participants shared metaphors that described peak moments that centered on their own learning.

Culturally, learning and self-development are core elements within the school and, as the principal, Addison, put it, “promote us as lifelong learners . . . I am constantly learning, myself.”

Continuous learning, and recognizing how both self- and shared-learning contributes to the team’s growth, also emerged as a central learning culture element. Attending to collective learning develops a spirit of collaboration across the team. The collective’s perspectives about a student’s ability to learn or complete tasks is important to know to be fully present for the students. Ethan explained, “What works for one student—you can’t just automatically expect it’s going to work for the next student, or even their classmate.”

Ethan went on to recognize that he learned more when he set aside his ego and tried new things that other teachers or paraprofessionals suggested, often based on what they recently learned about a student’s capabilities. He depended on other team members’ insights regarding each student’s needs and how the student might prefer to work on a project in his art class that day. He admitted that he sometimes “gets stuck . . . in a way of thinking . . . and [I’ll] think,

127

‘This is what I want for my class,’ but a coworker, or even not just the other teachers, but sometimes some of the paras have some interesting insights.”

Collaborative learning emerged as part of the process as staff developed new curricula.

Prior to Addison becoming the principal, the curriculum followed a more standard process, one derived from traditional special education curricula. The introduction of Gentle Teaching propelled deeper collaboration amongst the team members. Pat shared that, “I’ve heard of collaboration, but I didn’t know how much collaboration until I started working here.” Practicing collaboration gave the inter-professional team opportunity to deepen relationships, honor learning for themselves and others, and appreciate how team members contribute to the overall learning culture by embracing diverse perspectives.

Learning collaboratively, by experience. The team’s learning, growth, and cohesion has deepened through their collaborative work. As they share more across their disciplines, they realize how their collaborations can be supportive, both professionally and personally. Addison attested:

If we are teachers, we are also learners, and . . . we have to continue that thought process, and it’s through [individual] professional development we do as a team. And how those experiences just make us stronger as a whole group—not just the individuals . . . the individuals do their personal growth . . . but . . . we grow as a team.

Successful collaboration requires that team members open themselves to the ideas of others. Part of each team member’s growth while collaborating is also to become more agile, to be able to switch gears and change direction to focus on the immediacy of student needs. Monica summed up the need for agility with, “You’re constantly jumping from one thing to the next . . . you have to be quick, and on your feet, and yep, the plan you had is going out the window, so we’ve got to come up with the new plan rapidly.” Monica’s expression between “you” and “we”

128 symbolizes the shift from self-learning to collective learning across the organization. She emphasized how creating can be accomplished collectively, not only independently.

Similarly, Pat expressed the effort that the team dedicates to collaborating: “It takes a lot of work to get that collaboration, but when it does, and when it pans out, it’s amazing.” As a science teacher, Pat finds that the curriculum she develops works with some students and not with others; some students are visually or hearing impaired. She said she gets “stumped” because science learning incorporates a lot of hands-on experiments. Therefore, she finds that, remaining in touch with team members to understand which activities and experiments various students might be open to experience, helps her adapt the lessons to various learning styles. She explained, “I really have been plugging in with teachers, one of our Vice Principals, and OT, PT, and Speech . . . to learn how to reach [those students].”

Learning to learn. Addison also noted that, as the team members spent time collectively discovering, testing, and designing solutions together, they experienced deeper, sustainable learning, thereby learning to learn. In the past, the school leaders directed how teaching activities were developed and executed. The team members had less opportunities to work together creatively and, as they became open to sharing new ways of teaching, they intuitively learned new ways of learning and creating together.

With new leadership, team members were both expected and empowered to seek the input of others, to create and try new processes, and to test and improve those processes.

Addison emphasized that, as an administrator, “you can lecture about that, and you can tell

[them] about that, or you can let them experience that and come to that themselves.”

Unlearning. Within the context of learning and change, both organizationally or personally, unlearning refers to a “process, rather than a discrete event” (Becker, 2005; Becker &

129

Delahaye, 2006) where a person discards obsolete or misleading knowledge or habits to make way for new knowledge that will serve them, their clients, and the organization better (Hedberg,

1981; Newstrom, 1983; Prahalad & Bettis, 1986; Starbuck, 1996, 2009). It becomes an act of depositing new knowledge to replace (or augment) the old.

Discarding old knowledge is accomplished either intentionally (due to the immediacy of a required action) or incrementally as new experiences (either externally or internally; consciously or unconsciously) inform future action. Unlearning (and the capacity to notice when learning or unlearning occurs) also align with individuals’ capacities to recall organizational memory and processes (either explicit or implicit) that informed an experience.

Both unlearning and sharing with others when unlearning prompts new learning was a new reflection for most on the team. The recollection of events where unlearning impacted their lives prompted the longest pauses and deepest reflections for the storytellers. Reflective moments of unlearning were moments of “releas[ing] prior learning (including assumptions and mental frameworks) in order to accommodate new information and behaviours” (Becker, 2005, p. 661). These moments of un- and re-learning (the accommodation of new information and behaviors) can be powerful for the individual and the organization. They can re-energize creative thinking and new development. And, yet, exploration of unlearning as it relates to learning development often goes unexamined.

As mentioned earlier, when individuals become attached to what is known and comfortable, new learning is blocked. Deleuze and Guattari’s (2002) lines of flight concept helps to visualize how detachment from what is known allows for attachment to something other or new. When individuals find ways to free their thinking and detach (deterritorialize) from what is known, coded, or fixed (that which has been territorialized), they (or their thoughts) take flight to

130 create and consider new thinking, and, then, those new ideas reattach or re-ground

(reterritorialize). New habits or processes are developed toward an ongoing loop of unlearning and new learning.

Unraveling (or detaching from) traditional learning and practices was a theme repeatedly told. Stories were shared of stepping away from conventional teaching methods and perspectives as participants assimilated their work with their clients and their clients’ learning preferences.

Although the participants worked in a building that looked like a conventional school in many ways – classrooms, bulletin boards, playgrounds, cafeteria, and schedules – Ethan stressed that:

It’s definitely not like . . . any kind of public school, where you expect that when the bell rings everybody puts their books under their arm, and walks out into the hallway, and walks into their next class. It’s nothing like that at all.

Participants found that, while reflecting on how their special education learning was either aligned or misaligned with what they learned when beginning their teaching tenure at the school, much of their education did not teach them how their students actually learned. Amanda confirmed this saying, “Coming in as a new teacher you almost had to unlearn everything you were taught in college.”

Cindy echoed Amanda’s recognition of unlearning:

I had to really unlearn all the teaching—everything that I learned in school . . . that it’s okay for kids to have sort of an organized/unorganized kind of chaotic schedule . . . for them to be able to learn at their own pace.

Pat realized that she “could never go back [to] teaching the same way . . . that even though everything may seem normal . . . everybody learns differently.” She further described her shift in deciding what or how to teach:

I had to really unlearn instead of teaching [the established curriculum] because this is what I think should be taught. I [sit] back and think: “Okay this is what I want to teach” and now [I] put myself in their shoes and say “Okay how would they best learn it?

131

Unlearning also contributed to participants’ general ways of being beyond how they personally taught or interacted with their students. They reflected on how their experiences expanded their world-sense and the different ways they interacted with family, friends, and their community. Addison shared that she recognized that what she says or how she speaks in ordinary circumstances has changed; she has unlearned that the way she spoke or the specific words that she chose to use did not align with “how to approach things, and perception, and how people perceive what you say.” Addison made a connection with her earlier training and how it helped her become more aware of others’ perceptions:

We say things in just regular conversation that you and I—because of our background and upbringing—understand the little nuances, and the slang, and the different ways of describing things, and things like that that kids with Asperger’s, they don’t understand . . . So, understanding that I say something, you might not take it the same way But I have gained the skill to be able to self-reflect on that, and to be able to see from someone else’s perspective. They’ve given me that skill-set to be able to do that.

Pat also described how unlearning changed how she acts beyond the school environment and how it has influenced her entire life. She said, “I’ve had to unlearn a lot of things, but it’s helped me grow as a person because even in my daily life I see things and see people so much differently than I did before.” Douglas expressed similar sentiments of changing how he approaches others in life, as well as his awareness of them, “I’ve unlearned being too emotionally attached and connected. I’ve unlearned just trying to please everybody 100 percent all the time, because it’s actually not always the best practice.”

The team members’ new ways of working together—opening themselves to others’ perspectives, approaching new processes with curiosity and creativity, working collaboratively, learning to learn, unlearning, and applying alternate teaching practices—aligned well with

Gentle Teaching, the teaching philosophy and practice introduced to the school by Addison (the principal). Focusing on students’ emotional states, learning mindsets, and readiness to

132 accomplish tasks gave school staff an opportunity to integrate what they learned amongst themselves with how they approached teaching their students more openly, collaboratively, adaptively, and inclusively.

Summary

As I listened to each storyteller offer perspectives of working with their team members, I bore witness to their connected lives, both professional and personal. I remained (as best as I was able) in a neutral place while listening, providing them the space to dig deep, reflect, and reveal emotions, joys, defeats, and victories. I heard stories of searching and discovery; I observed moments of joy and sadness.

Clearly, the storytellers profoundly care about what they do each day; their work, in service to students, is grounded in a deep wish to see students grow, learn, and thrive and, eventually, if or when they exit the school, to also thrive within their families and social environments. Overall, their stories illustrated multiplistic facets of connection, collaboration, caring, and compassion, each reaching and sprouting from the changes and learning they experienced. The changes were often, if not always, learned and practiced, not demanded or dictated. The staff described working in an environment that enabled agency for growth, discovery, co-creation, and care.

Reflecting on Deleuze and Guattari’s (2002) principles, rhizome is always in the middle, in motion, with no real beginning or end. The participants’ stories demonstrated how they

(consciously or unconsciously) experienced change and learning from dwelling in the middle

(Deleuze & Guattari, 2002). They remained open to emergent possibilities. The organization in which they worked contained ever-moving offerings to learn, unlearn, and adapt. It provided them with an environment to grow in ways that were surprising and cherished. In their telling,

133 insights emerged and coalesced with their personal lives, their memories, and what they deemed as essential to who they became and who they were.

The storytellers’ culture of learning and adapting reached beyond their daily activities— interrelated and interconnected—challenging them to remain open to changes occurring within themselves, their students, the collective, and their lives beyond the classroom. Those experiences enabled them to develop new ways to meet students’ abilities, ways to deepen their own development, and noticeable shifts where they became other (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002).

Their experiences deepened their companionship, collaboration, engagement, curiosity, learning, adapting, and interdependence; storytelling gave them agency to express those experiences. Through their stories, one notices ways that the storytellers formed a deeply connected and cohesive social network, one that has bonded them to each other for support, sharing, collaboration, and learning. There is a sense of both individual and collective well-being across the team, and their identities as competent, curious, and self-aware staff members, partners, mentors, and learners is evident in their words. They shared stories of success and struggle, all the while telling stories of care and support. As stressful as their jobs must be while balancing care for others with their own self-care, the relationships across the inter-professional team have enhanced their lives, both within and outside the school. Kilduff and Tsai (2003) suggested that, “these types of network we form around ourselves affect everything from our health, to our career success, to our very identities” (p. 2). Like the dynamic movement we see in rhizome growth, connections between individuals in the way they communicate, share, solve problems, and build relationships share similar movement, all conditioned by the internal and external factors within the culture. Cross and Parker (2004) claimed, “Social networks in organizations are dynamic and conditioned by strategy, infrastructure, and the work that is being

134 done at a given time . . . and may lead people with certain expertise to become . . . connected”

(pp. viii-ix).

This chapter has presented the overall findings that emerged from data gathered from 16 interviews with an inter-professional team that works together at a rehabilitation, residential school. The stories they shared shed a nuanced view into their interconnected and interrelated work and relationships, and, through their reflections, the meaning the work held for them.

Chapter V identifies the main themes of these storylines considering learning frameworks described earlier. This leads to a discussion of a framework based on rhizome theory including its implications for practice and further research, and concludes with final reflections.

135

Chapter V: Summary, Discussion, and Implications

We communicate and live through our stories, stories that we tell about ourselves, others, and the world around us. They portray who we are, how we think, what is important to us, and what we wish. They are containers that hold sway in ways that we often don’t know. They weave and intersect, and, as Clandinin and Connelly (2000), drawing on M. C. Bateson (1994), suggest,

“All of us lead storied lives on storied landscapes” (p. 8).

Claiming no single interpretation, our stories, like life, plot both the good and the bad, thereby becoming provocateurs of change. Our stories then also become a guiding, change-force that leads us toward learning and meaning-making. We change with our telling. Our telling instills change. Becoming aware of change—and coming to know the ways that change offers new possibility—ignites self- and other-learning and furthers our capacity to adapt.

Bateson’s (1994) description aligns well with the over-arching purpose of this study of learning and adapting, as well as with an imagining of a rhizomatic framework of learning in an organization. Like fables of old, experiences shared were as storied as the individuals who shared them.

The containers of story woven throughout this study provided a backdrop to examine what might be possible, how awareness may be deepened by furthering organizational storytelling in future work, and how social network analysis (and the understanding thereof) may enrich that awareness. This final chapter, beginning with the study’s purpose, follows with a description of my role as researcher and the reflexivity that I maintained as I held space for listening to the participants’ stories with curiosity and neutrality. This is followed with a summary of the context within which the stories were shared and how those storylines mirrored a rhizome’s way of growing—connected and integrated within the collective voice. The chapter

136 then presents peak learning storylines, those of personal change, change within the organization,

Gentle Teaching and learning, meeting where they are, adapting, learning, and unlearning.

Finally, the chapter explores limitations of the study, practice implications, and recommendations for future research; and concludes with personal reflections.

Purpose of the Study

My earliest curiosity for conducting the case study came from my interest in rhizomatic principles based on Deleuze and Guattari’s (2002) book, A Thousand Plateaus. This described rhizome philosophy and its elements such as connection, multiplicity, heterogeneity, asignifying rupture. It prompted me to wonder if (or how or when) rhizomatic qualities emerge within a team’s work and, if so, how they synthesized with or departed from other learning theories and frameworks presented.

Literature exploring legacy and traditional learning and adapting theories abound.

However, studies exploring rhizome-philosophy based learning within organizations or teams struck me as nascent, which prompted me to wonder if (and how) Rhizomatic Learning in

Organizations principles might deepen a team’s work when those principles were made visible and came to be collectively embraced. These principles, as compared with other learning theories and frameworks, centered my interest to study a case rooted in a learning-theoretical construct.

Yin (1999) eloquently described this method, or unit of study as, “equivalent to an experiment and driven toward theory . . . [while maintaining the] “ability to ‘discover’ while in the process of doing the research” (pp. 1212, 1216).

To reiterate from the first chapter, my research question was: do rhizomatic principles inform, influence, and impact the way an inter-professional team, and its agents learn and adapt while working together, and in what ways do those principles differ from, enhance, improve, or limit various legacy learning principles?

137

I employed organizational storytelling as the method to unearth and analyze storylines, and to excavate themes within those stories told. Did rhizome principles manifest? If so, how?

And, if so, did they inform or influence the ways in which the team experienced learning and adapting? Were they different or were they the same as other learning principles or frameworks explored? And, finally, what could the team further learn from their stories? What held sway that had potential to increase their development?

How a team works together can reveal much about how they solve problems, collaborate, face or challenge conflict, and build relationships. Details shared about their learning and adapting experiences could have fit nicely into a rudimentary realm if I had asked for only factual explanations. In this study, however, I invited participants to describe experiences using metaphor to encourage sharing beyond what might be obvious and proven, and to encourage a reach into deeper, more personal meaning. Crafting the interview questions to juxtapose fact and metaphor also provided the means for the tellers to construct moments of their experiences into which they had not delved before. The storytelling, therefore, became an excavation of meaning and purpose.

Reflexivity

Phenomenological research exists centered within a space of connection between the researcher and those who participate in the research. It is intrinsically connected; total neutrality is virtually impossible. As stories were told, responding to open-ended interview questions, participants recalled experiences that helped to (re)form language that then co-constructed new knowledge; both the tellers and I gained deeper awareness through their telling. As such, I found myself consciously (and, unconsciously, I assume) tuning in all my senses by bearing witness in situ. I listened, watched, felt, and envisioned as their words wove intricate, often messy, thick descriptions of their lived experiences while working together. This method prompted me to

138 listen for story rather than listening to a story (Welty, 1983). Their tellings, steeped in a tangle of experiences, were rich in emotional, intellectual, metaphorical, and physical detail.

My researcher role was fluid by design. As a listener and explorer, I offered a safe, open space for their telling. I also focused on remaining open, neutral, and curious to ensure that any conceivable attachment to my own experiences would not impact my ability to be fully present.

This required an emotionally and physically challenging back and forth, in and out, sitting with them and, metaphorically, standing apart. Noticing their words, their bodies, their pauses, and exclamations while they shared drew me further into their stories. Their telling, thick and descriptive, revealed strengths, weaknesses, joys, and sorrows; they coalesced within a sacred space—which I was honored to hold—yet a space in which any personal biases could stand in the way of interpreting true meaning. I reflexively listened while maintaining acute awareness of my interest or bias that might skew my interpretations. Like a coach spotting a practicing gymnast so she can flex into her routine as fluidly as she is able, I consciously spotted my bias to gracefully listen.

The physical, emotional, and mental contortions that reflexivity demands were a challenge. My own ability to learn or adapt may or may not mirror the participants’ experiences and abilities. And, yet, I experience life—as they have—and, as such, it became my work as a researcher to remain aware when I might be lending my own experiences into interpreting their stories. I focused my listening to glean those facets that connected to what I sought to understand—those of learning and adapting while working together within an inter-professional team—as well as for new facets that might reveal insights beyond my original intentions.

Reflexivity—the core meaning of which is to bend back upon oneself (Finlay & Gough,

2003)—well describes my experience during this research. Listening, remaining neutral, offering

139 silence and safety, and asking clarifying questions were shared work between researcher and participant. It was a research experience that presented both time and space in which to engage and co-construct meaning as stories were shared and unpacked (Latham, 2013). I returned home from the sessions each day satiated, consumed, inspired, and changed.

The analysis that follows focuses on understanding the storylines from the perspective of

(and alignment with) rhizomatic theory. The emergence of the new learning framework, that of

Rhizomatic Learning in Organizations (RLO), provides context for enhancing learning and adapting within organizations.

Context

The following data emerged from the 194 stories shared over multiple days of intake. The analysis of data unearthed storylines of learning and change, particularly how learning and adapting while working together as a team connected to changes they experienced within the context of a residential home and school environment in which they worked, an organization focused on the care, learning, and development of students who needed physical, mental, emotional, and intellectual attention. Both personal and organizational change stories were shared, stories that encompassed changes in how the individuals taught and cared for the students, as well as stories telling of the new ways they worked together as a team.

Personal change was examined to evidence how individualistic learning and change aligned with the learning theories and frameworks presented in Chapter II: social learning; single-loop, double-loop, and triple-loop learning; transformational learning; learning organizations; and RLO. Organizational changes were also evident.

As the study unfolded, examples of organizational change emerged: changes that influenced the staff personally (internal changes) and changes that influenced how the collective worked together (external changes). Although there was clear evidence of changes occurring

140 across the organization, as in structure, process, procedures, and decision-making, their stories also revealed how those changes shifted their perspectives about themselves and others. It became clear that, although external hard factors like structure were apparent, softer factors like collaboration, conversation, and relationship were also evident. It soon became clear that both types of changes grew, transformed, and re-emerged across the organization rhizomatically.

All participants expressed how change impacted them, either through working together, participating on projects, or comparing their past with their current work experiences. Evidences of learning and unlearning were expressed. The school, a division within the rehabilitation home, also experienced change through the advent of new administration, new administrative processes, and new teaching methods, thus, impacting the participants in multiple ways. Change, whether subtle or striking, triggered shifts for the team in recognizing their strengths, shortcomings, and possibilities for growth (Moore, 2005). Change became an impetus in how they learned and adapted.

The participants’ tellings had me imagining how they, together and individually, grew, attached, detached, and grew further mirroring how rhizome root systems grow – connected, wound with diverse perspectives, and, oftentimes, tangled together with their personal and professional lived experiences. Their stories brought forth a core storyline of learning and change that wound its way within each of their tellings—interconnected, relational, personally and professionally striking, and rich with insight—stories that demonstrated how they grew, learned, and adapted while working together. The following presents the team’s ongoing rhizomatic growth and development, both from a personal and external context. Like rhizome, their stories were steeped in movement and fluidity.

141

Learning and Change: A Rhizomatic Storyline

Complex organizations—those that require (or practice) interconnectedness—exist in a state of perpetual change, adapting, and learning. Interpersonal relationships, shifting needs, and moment by moment decision-making requires constituents to develop capacities to build relationships across borders, collaborate, and embrace diverse perspectives (Uhl-Bien & Marion,

2009). Given opportunity to work together, learn about each other’s’ perspectives, and converse in a safe environment, individuals can grow in their ability to collaborate, overcome conflict, and navigate ongoing change with greater ease. Understanding the organizational, and its cultural assumptions regarding how decisions are made, how empowerment is embraced, and what is considered vitally important to overall organizational health extends to how change is accepted

(or even sought) amongst the team members (Janićijević, 2012).

Kahn suggested that groups:

[s]ustain positive relationships by offering their members ‘good harbors’ that offer shelter from the storms of organizational life . . . allowing individuals to work together in safe ways, allow vulnerability and authenticity, and offer shape and meaning to their work experiences. (as cited in Dutton & Ragins, 2007, pp. 20–21).

Kahn went on to describe how positive relational groups sustain their positivity through practices of self-regulation and ongoing positive spirals of self-perpetuating positive acts. This act of stockpiling positive experiences allows a group to draw further positivity from the abundance of connection with one another (as cited in Dutton & Ragins, 2007).

The participants talked about learning in a way that was generative, creative, and connected. Both personal and organizational change was something with which they lived collectively and learned to navigate every day, with care and compassion. Professional, personal, and organizational change was rooted below the surface of most of the stories told and the changes they encountered offered—even required—opportunities to learn, unlearn, and adapt.

142

The textured content of their stories caused me to imagine rhizome growing— connecting, meandering, and continuing its growth in multiple directions. Their stories, with their twists and turns, was like studying a rhizome’s undergrowth as it threads tangles, knots, and weaves. Rhizome theory’s principles provide further context regarding their storylines.

Rhizome theory. Rhizome theory, and its principles (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002), offers a way of thinking and being that enables a collective to develop and practice flexibility in tandem with stable, set organizational processes, moving beyond the stasis traditional and legacy learning and adapting theories and frameworks explored earlier. Dwelling within the middle of things, where collective learning and adapting are emergent and collaborative, allows for centering and developing comfort for the unknown or the unfinished. It provides space for learning that is open and that moves toward ongoing development. Dwelling within the middle of things perpetuates a learner to move beyond reflection, an action typically performed following a situation (Dewey, 1938/1997). It situates a learner to remain in the thick of learning, to give learning time and space to germinate, form, un-form, reform, and grow. It is not a place of looking for answers with fervor; it is a place of allowing learning and insights to emerge.

Enabling one to dwell in the middle of things is informed by both explicit and tacit knowledge, thereby deepening awareness for embracing change that is both established and emergent.

Change influences both learning and unlearning and, conceiving of learning and unlearning rhizomatically, helps to think of the collective resembling a sea of middles, continuously forming, unforming, and reforming based on alliances determined by needs, interests, directions, questions, redirections, assessments, and commitments (Reilly, 2013).

Unlike traditional organizations fixed in a perceived stable state or fixed in traditional learning processes, a rhizomatic space acknowledges, and even leverages, the continuous flow of both

143 learning and unlearning. Here, learners come together and move apart across, in, and out of cartographies and territories of practice and creativity, allowing multiple perspectives to take flight, regenerate, and become new (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002).

It may be helpful to contrast rhizome to the root-tree morphology more commonly used as a metaphor for organizational structures, for there is a distinction in how each grows and moves. Consider Pando (also known as the “Trembling Giant”): this is a massive colony of a single quaking aspen tree spread over more than 100 acres in Utah (National Park Service, n.d.).

It has grown from a single root for over 80,000 years. Lawley (2005) connects rhizome growth with structure in this way:

Arboreal, root-tree structures grow and multiply in relation to a central guiding and anchoring structure. The rhizome, on the other hand, is the free, expansive movement of grass, constantly connecting random and infinite points. Root-tree structures stifle this movement, diminishing its expansiveness and potential. At the same time, underlying rhizomatic movement troubles such seemingly static structures. (p. 36)

The participants’ stories often revealed structures analogous to these distinctions, while examining their past and current learning. They recalled situations that must remain hinged or fixed, shared opportunities that enabled them to unhinge established practices, and how unhinging some of those practices contributed to serving students in a deeper, more relational way. The awareness of hinged/unhinged distinctions offered further detail in how they personally changed as they shared stories of learning peaks while working together.

The stories carried themes that were both emergent and connected. Like rhizome, they interconnected, meandered, and attached at different points of the overall inter-professional teams’ experiences. Beginning with sharing their peaks of learning, the participants described how they personally changed and what influenced their change.

144

Hierarchical to Rhizomatic Structure

In an organization that functions and learns rhizomatically, exchanges resemble a tangle of roots and shoots, both broken and whole, moving horizontally with a vertical structure. Rather than merely scaling up (as in a tree-like structure), one overlays networked connections in multiple directions. Figure 5.1 compares how the study participants’ stories were descriptive of the school’s hierarchical structure prior to Addison taking the role as principal, to the adapting collaborative, connected ways of working, after she worked to effectuate fundamental change in which their social interactions created a more interconnected and networked way of working.

Figure 5.1. Traditional hierarchical organizational school structure (root system) versus rhizome-like organizational structures. Note that the connections in the rhizome like structure portrayed here are not intended to portray the situation as it really is; in fact, consistent with the nature of rhizome structure and dynamics, these are all in an endless state of flux.

145

Problem framing, solution creating, and decision-making formed a social network within the collective, which reached beyond formal roles and skills. Collaboration leveraged tensions between exploration and exploitation processes, and provided for free-flowing creative interchange and adapting. Exploration of possibility became a sought-after entity rather than remaining attached to prior, grounded experience (Holmqvist, 2003, 2009).

Systems that enable open exchange, or are relatively unstructured, promote creative exploration, creativity that reaches beyond what has been held as standard or grounded in practice. However, this is not to say that one needs to exist without the other. Hinged or closed processes (ones that are established, routinely-followed, or regulated) are often required for efficiency while open or unhinged structures (processes that are open to ongoing change or are emergent) enable individuals to innovate for the sake of developing efficiencies.

These distinctions also offer how learning and adapting can certainly exist in both fixed and open circumstances. It is critical to pay attention to processes or regulations that are required for a system to function and to also pay attention to when (or how) those processes might unnecessarily block creativity, learning, and adapting. This refers to a previously mentioned distinction of exploitation and exploration (Holmqvist, 2003, 2009); through balancing both exploitation and exploration systems thrive, especially when individuals deepen awareness for recognizing when exploitation of structures and processes and ability to explore openly are most appropriate.

The eight storylines emerged from this study are further described in the following sections with respect to their alignment with rhizome theory. They are introduced first with the storyline, peaks of learning, followed by personal change, change within the organization, Gentle

Teaching and learning, meeting where they are, adapting, learning, and unlearning.

146

Peaks of Learning

Significant learning (and teaching) experiences—those seen by interviewees as significant points of personal impact—were elements in the shared individuals’ lived experiences that shifted how the team worked. Before Addison took on her role and implemented a change in how the staff taught students, using a new teaching practice called Gentle Teaching (McGee &

Menolascino, 1991), the staff worked primarily within functional roles. They performed tasks with little to no engagement with other organizational functions. Their work mirrored more of a root-tree structure – hierarchical and striated (as presented in Figure 5.1).

I asked them to recall times when learning held a peak experience for them, a time when learning shifted their view of the world and their ways of being. Most told stories about how they learned deeply by connecting with others, by opening themselves to others’ perspectives, and by seeing beyond the obvious or practiced. They changed personally through their learning and, by changing personally, the organization’s culture and practices changed. Their stories of organizational and personal change, while learning, were especially poignant; some laughed, some were surprised by the emotion their memories evoked, and more than a few were pleased by the changes they noticed in themselves, both at the school and in their personal lives. They were aware of internal perspectives —their perceptions, willingness to learn, awareness about their growth, and ways that they had become something other than what they were prior to their experiences at the school— and external ones—new organizational processes, others’ perspectives, opportunities to deepen collaboration influences that shifted how they viewed their work, and how they viewed the people around them. Cindy summed up her peak experience of learning and growing with an analogy:

When you climb to the top of a mountain and that feeling you get when you get to the top of “I’m still going—I’m still growing and I’ll always be growing.” So, I’m always climbing up the hill, but each little step you take or every view you look at throughout

147

your way up the mountain has been—it’s been an amazing experience and I’ve grown so much each step of the way. But I know that there’s still more steps that I need to go up.

The storylines twist and turn, much like rhizome grows. They weave a collective frame of a team that grows rhizomatically. It is with that metaphor in mind, that their storylines align with

RLO principles. The following describes that alignment.

Personal Change

Participants shared stories regarding the personal changes and growth they experienced while working together. They noticed shifts in ways they thought about themselves and others and how their work with students developed. These changes were influenced by changes occurring within the school and then manifested in how they thought about themselves and ways they worked with others.

The school’s administration roles had recently changed and, with that change, new processes for admitting students and new ways for teaching and caring for students were introduced. The staff learned how to implement those changes as a collective as well as individually. They noticed how those changes influenced their work within the school, as well as within the team.

Participants spoke about how their teaching mindsets had shifted. The book knowledge obtained while pursuing their degrees, generally as fixed solutions expected to address a variety of situations, was less effective than the hands-on, diverse practices they experienced. Their mindsets were challenged to grow and consider alternative ways of teaching due to the daily challenges they faced, different from the standard curricula they learned during their formal training. The staffs’ mindsets adapted to become more growth-oriented (shifting from a fixed mindset of curriculum-driven processes) as they worked daily with diverse student needs

(Dweck, 2006). Their adaptive mindsets (and ways in which they personally changed) mirrored

148 the rhizome principle of multiplicity as they underwent change moment by moment while working to address the ever-changing needs of their students. Their solutions and ways of teaching were not a good-for-all intervention, rather their ways of being became more like a metamorphosis, a dimensionality of methods.

How they changed, and the learning they experienced while they changed, was influenced by how they adapted, ways that they had incorporated new, innovative teaching principles within their classroom, and in how they interacted with each other (Dewey, 1916;

McGee, 1992; McGee & Menolascino, 1991; Sinclair, 2007). Staff interactions, observing and learning from others, and reflecting upon and applying new learning practices, created a socially-driven, relational way of working together, an embodiment of multiplicity.

Reflection. Considered a vital activity for learning and personal change, reflection is a practice worth promoting and supporting in an organization. Individuals who mull over what they observe, participate in, and incorporate as new learning leads to a shift in one’s belief systems (Edwards et al., 1996). Reflection is parallel with inquiry. It is a means of being curious about others’ perspectives, and, thus, of imparting a change in self-perspective. Paul shared how he personally changed when he opened himself up to participating in new learning. He said:

I came in like a blank slate. One of the things that I do is attend and participate in all the therapies. It’s optional, but I’d prefer to be in there and see what’s happening and how they do what they do. I’ve seen people do just beautiful, miraculous stuff. I’ve learned about physical therapy, occupational therapy, music therapy, and speech therapy. It made me more sensitive to the people that I was working with in terms of interacting person-to-person.

Reflecting on one’s need to shift ways of teaching based on the moment’s or the student’s need was another concept that emerged. Ethan said:

It really was an eye-opener once I started interacting with the students, because you must take what you learn from the outside world, and completely flip it around in some ways. You can’t just come in with the same expectations; you must constantly be shifting your paradigm for each student.

149

These examples demonstrate Rodgers’ (2002) idea of reflection as inquiry where one must step back, remain neutral to what one is doing or seeing, and eschew ego to allow space for inquiry and curiosity to take hold. The practice “moves a learner from one experience to other experiences and ideas” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 845); it happens within one’s thinking while interacting with others. This change in learning is possible while working within a rhizomatic environment that invites freedom to fully participate in exploration, inquiry, and experimentation.

Their stories illustrated transformational learning (Mezirow, 1981, 1991, 1994) and how reflection is important in meaning-making. Transformational learning occurs as an outcome when experiencing a disorienting dilemma, an event that stops an individual and prompts them to reflect on what is disorienting them. Both Paul and Ethan experienced situations where their world views shifted based on what they experienced. They changed how they interacted with others and, in that change, experienced the rhizomatic change of becoming other.

Becoming other. The notion of becoming other is a transformative process where one adapts and adopts renewed ways of being and doing through new practices and beliefs (Deleuze

& Guattari, 2002). It is a rhizomatic concept that becomes possible when individuals work in environments that are continuously changing, and that enable individuals to consider new perspectives, to co-create, and to experience heterogeneous learning. Becoming other is a means toward developing agility to adapt to change, and is made possible through developing relationships and collectively collaborating (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002; Dewey, 1938/1997;

Reilly, 2009, 2011a). As relationships develop, capacities to learn and contribute are deepened; shifts in who we are and how we act become tacit.

150

By becoming other, we change the world in which we exist just by how we are different.

We enter new territory, a step that aligns with the rhizome principle of cartography. It is “the act of creation itself; it becomes a self, and in becoming a self, it changes the world [around us] . . . it is a willingness to become-other” (Cisney, 2014, pp. 57–58). These notions and behaviors were evident as the team adapted new ways of performing their tasks and discovered that, by collaborating, they grew in their roles and in how they contributed to the organization.

While individuals become other and build habits of observing, reflecting, inquiring, and collaborating, their experiences deepen capacity for learning and teaching in new ways – open, collaborative, inclusive, and creative. Cindy recognized her capacity for continuing to learn and teach in new ways, even after completing her formal training. She said, “It’s awesome to be able to have all that experience and to still continue to know that I can still keep on growing and learning.” Lori offered a metaphoric description about becoming other. She shared:

All I can think about is swimming. I didn’t learn to swim until I was in my 30s and now I’m a very good swimmer; I can swim for a long time, I became a good swimmer and I love it. I think it’s comparable, it’s a good metaphor, because I feel so calm when I’m in that place [of changing and growing].

These new ways of being and of becoming other align with Senge’s (1990, 1994) principles of learning organizations and with Gentle Teaching practices as developed by McGee and Menolascino (1991), practices that involve and encourage learning, shifting perspectives, and changing. They also align with rhizome principles of connection and heterogeneity, where connection occurs across “wildly diverse things” (Adkins, 2015, p. 24). Adkins (2015) offered an example of language as “opposite of discrete” (p. 25); language flows, connects, disperses, reconnects, and is “a mixture of words, things, power, and geography . . . a continuous phenomenon (lines, not points)” (p. 25).

151

Their tellings provided a picture of their connected, diverse, and developing lives, weaving in reflections of both personal and work experiences and becoming other. The stories depicted a network of social interactions that deepened their capacities for learning and adapting, thereby furthering their agility to change both personally and organizationally, and their focus toward building sustainable relationships. These attributes contributed to the staff’s capacity to adopt—and adapt to—a new way of learning and collaborating which contributed to, and helped shape, changes within the organization.

Change Within the Organization

Change within the organization was also evident in the stories shared. A new administrative staff emphasized a renewed sense of urgency for growing the organization; promoted new methods for recruiting students, working with them, teaching them; and for partnering with communities, school systems, and families. Some storytellers adapted well to those changes; a number of them struggled.

To some participants, communication about the new administration’s changes was disjointed at first. The previous culture was one of conducting multiple meetings with multiple attendees, all gathering together with consensus as the outcome goal. Whether a meeting was pertinent to one’s role was less important than having everyone attend, hear the same message at the same time, and then make decisions at the same time. This practice was often viewed as a waste of time; others had developed an expectation of hearing everything and being part of decision-making, even if those decisions did not directly affect them. Jordan expressed his appreciation of the shift to attending only the meetings that impacted his role. He gained back time in his day to focus on tasks that were more critical to his role.

As the organization changed, former processes and methods shifted as well. These shifting processes offered opportunities to learn and reestablish new ways of working that

152 promoted deeper collaboration across the team. Changes implemented organizationally enabled opportunities for the team members to change how they worked, as well as who they became as staff members and individuals. Staff members who were closest to the work or who had the most influence on the success of a project became involved when they were needed. They entered and exited conversations when (and where) most appropriate for the anticipated outcome. This new movement mirrored the rhizomatic principle of cartography.

A rhizome has multiple points of entry; one can enter a rhizome at any point. Maps are unfinished and, due to their unfinished state, the principle of cartography describes the in-play nature that is a team and a team’s work. For example, as a map is used to traverse a territory, and depending on from where one (or multiple people) enters a map, those entry and exit points will also be in flux. This phenomenon helps us notice that situations, people, and information shared shifts based on who is present, why they are contributing, what is discussed, and when something is explored.

These changes—how they occurred, how they were embraced, and the ways in which they create shifts in direction and movement among the staff—illustrate how an RLO behaves: fluid, open to change, nomadic, insightful, connected, and collaborative. Organizational changes prompted change within the team members themselves, changes that included how they grew in their capacities to work together, as well in teaching in a new way by learning a new philosophy called, Gentle Teaching.

Gentle Teaching and Learning

Applying Gentle Teaching principles was a departure from the school’s former standard.

Teaching practices exercised in the past at the school were often reprimanding and process-driven. Addison was passionate about introducing Gentle Teaching principles for both the staff and students to interact differently, and for the staff to interacted with each other in new

153 ways. She viewed the implementation of Gentle Teaching as another way for the organization to change by putting practices into place that increased trust, caregiving, positive reinforcement, and wholesome relationships. She said:

Gentle Teaching is just a nonviolent approach to building relationships, and making the experiences for our children meaningful, and [is] mutually rewarding for both the students, and the staff, and it’s not based on punishment. It’s not based on any of that; it’s just based on building that relationship, building that trust, so that the students are ready to learn, and ready to grow with you. And until you’ve established that, you can’t move beyond trying to gain any skill sets.

Gentle Teaching’s nonviolent, caring approach enables both students and staff to work and learn together toward solutions that can move and flow in accordance with where each of them are in the moment—emotionally, physically, and intellectually. Having almost no pre-set approach, each situation, and the needs surrounding each situation, moves in partnership to adapt to the moment and to the person. Just as each student is unique, so is each moment of teaching.

Cindy described her adaptive learning with the practice:

It’s okay for them to only learn for five minutes today and maybe 10 minutes tomorrow, or it’s okay for them to not learn at all today because today’s not a day that they’re capable of learning, that they need to just work on themselves and that tomorrow might be a better day for them to be capable of learning.

Adapting to Gentle Teaching principles extended into how the staff worked differently with and learned from each other, as well. Addison explained:

There’s a whole professional development kind of component to it, and reflective [of] who you are, how you presented yourself, even your tone of voice, your body positioning, all those things, and it really becomes a learning tool for the staff.

Curriculum then becomes a framework in which to learn and adapt together, fostering an environment where students and staff are met where they are—intellectually, physically, and emotionally—in a specific moment. The enriched teaching and learning collaboration creates awareness and relationship.

154

Gentle Teaching is inherently rhizomatic; its principles encourage and promote companionship, interaction, and interdependence, which align with rhizomatic principles. There is an underlying mutuality and transformation that occurs when working within a Gentle

Teaching learning environment and a rhizomatic learning environment within an organization, both enabling individuals to meet where they are. Connection, cartography, heterogeneity, and asignifying rupture are all in play.

Gentle Teaching and learning also align with Mezirow’s (1981, 1991, 1994) transformational learning theory in that it allows space for learning to occur at the pace in which individuals can maintain. In other words, each learner draws personal meaning from their experiences which drives the learning they access. Each learner’s belief system and view of the world drives their capacity to learn in ways that are specific to how they see and navigate their world, and connects with where they are in their learning journey.

Meeting Where They Are

A shift became evident in how the staff and students worked together, and in how the staff interacted with each other. Practicing Gentle Teaching and learning offered opportunities for working in ways that were inclusive, caring, and connected. It embraced individuals’ perspective, knowledge, and capacity to work, contribute, and learn at a level that is connected with their abilities and willingness to grow.

This notion aligns with the rhizome principles of connection and multiplicity, adapting interactions where each person is comfortable or able, a practice I define as meeting where they are. Meeting at the place where a person’s capacity to engage is open and ready became an influential model for redirecting curriculum to meet individuals at a place of optimum learning.

It was a-centered; it had no central pivot point from which learning was navigated. Monica said,

“We do a lot of group work; it’s very individualized. That was big for me. We’re not just doing

155 one lesson and, ‘Here are the materials.’ It’s one lesson, and, ‘Here are 10 different ways to do it.’” Ethan echoed this: “I can approach it in this way, but then next class, or the next student I might have to speak to them a little bit differently, or kind of keep my words more simplified for this particular child.”

Meeting where they are, concerns students’ capacity to learn at various moments and with various connections. Each student comes to the school bringing their prior experiences.

Each of those experiences influence the student’s readiness to learn and, by extension, the staffs’ capacity to care for and teach them. Assumptions of students’ mindsets or emotional states, of how they should be or could be learning that day, block possibilities for greater learning outcomes. Rather, meeting where they are means that learning becomes a partnership between staff and student to determine the approach: where they should go and how they will get there.

Learning becomes cartographical, nomadic.

The previous examples demonstrate the team’s way of learning and adapting that is collective, creative, and self-organizing. Co-creation is evident in solving problems and demonstrate a shift away from personal bias or fixed solutions thereby offering possibility for both students and staff to collaborate toward alternative ways of working together. Solutions are not scripted; in-the-moment creative decision-making is at play; outcomes are textured and innovative. Outside prescribed educational regulations required by law, the way the team works with each other and with the students can be described as collective intelligence (Bonabeau,

2009; Bonabeau & Meyer, 2001), a flow of collective perspectives merging together to form deeper, more meaningful insights that inform decisions.

During change—and, often, during times of unpredictability—team members metaphorically exist in a flight dance, an in situ, unstructured, and often new, explored territory

156 where learning, unlearning, relearning, and adapting lends itself to informing ways in which they work. In situ work aligns with, and relies on, being in the middle of things, being open and curious for new learning, able to thrive with the unpredicted and unknown. And it is only possible when an inter-professional team develops resiliency in the face of uncertainty, embracing ways of working that honor multiplistic perspectives. Such teams adapt new learning to enhance their work in an environment that I define as a Rhizomatic Learning Organization

(RLO). An RLO demonstrates collectively intelligent, adaptive, resilient, and nomadic behaviors. The team’s stories held evidence of rhizomatic principles at play in their work.

Adapting

Adapting while working together was another noticeable element across the team.

Shifting responsively, changing direction, and adapting behaviors became foundationally important at the school. Monica said:

We’re constantly jumping from one thing to the next, and we must be quick, and on our feet. The plan we had goes out the window so we’ve got to come up with a new plan quickly, or we’re going to end up going downhill with that student.

Learning to adapt requires a non-attachment to ego, and a willingness to allow one’s self- knowledge to be accepting of others’ ideas and incorporating those new ideas into one’s work.

For example, teachers develop curricula for classwork that will be accomplished the following day or week; their curriculum roadmap is important for planning and execution. However, the students’ capacity to learn or perform planned activities shifts based on their day-to-day capabilities. Paraprofessionals help to inform teachers about their students’ ability to work or learn, and they help teachers adapt curricula to meet students’ needs. Ethan, as he reflected about his art classes and how he adapts to what each student needs, shared that his students are “all individuals; they’re all unique.”

157

This interchange of support, informing, and shifting perspectives while maintaining a detachment to ego is evident in adaptive leadership. Uhl-Bien, et al (2007) defined adaptive leadership as “an emergent, interactive dynamic that produces outcomes in a social system . . . a collaborative change movement that emerges nonlinearly from interactive exchanges (p. 306).

Heifetz (1994) claimed that there needs to be a certain amount of disequilibrium within the system for individuals (or a team) to practice and develop adaptive behaviors.

Developing capacity to reach beyond their technical skills and adapt to others’ ideas, is a concept that is necessary for a team to become adaptive in their practices. Especially in the case of the school where the students’ lives, outlooks, willingness to learn, and their own adaptability shift by the day. It takes trust built amongst the staff and the students, leadership that is open to adaptive behaviors and developing comfort with the unknown or the unpracticed that establishes adaptability within an organization.

Adapting requires openness for heterogeneous exchange and contribution, patience for gradual change, reflection, and in-the-moment ability to shift a process while working on a project. Ethan’s personal vision of how a project would unfold, based on his curriculum planning, could not stand in the way of a student’s (or, by extension, a staff’s) input or learning.

He said:

I’ve had to shift a little bit here [and there] realizing, “Okay . . . I’m not in complete agreement with what this person—what their judgment call was on that situation, but as a team member I’ll try to roll with this as best as possible.”

Adapting to students’ and staff’s needs is paramount to the overall experience, which then can be used to adapt future art projects. It shapes new experiences; new experiences offer opportunities to adapt. Adapting also illustrates another example of lines of flight in play, both materially and personally. A previously established process takes flight from a place of

158 grounding and routine, changes, and then reestablishes itself as something new. Ethan explained further how adapting can take time in practice:

It certainly doesn’t happen overnight; it’s gradual. There are some staff that come in with their students, and I’ve heard them say, “I’m terrible at art” and, “I don’t know what I’m doing.” So, I try to get everybody to realize that this isn’t about creating a masterwork of art, but it’s about enjoying the process of using the materials, and seeing how something starts off and how all the pieces come together, how it will turn out in the end.

Learning

Dewey (1916) promoted learning as a social and relational process. He coined the ideas of power to learn and learning power as foundations of ongoing habit-building, concepts enabled when the environment is open to learning and interacting in situ. This concept includes working with others, observing, and collaborating to solve problems. It unleashes fixed thinking that is often blocked by striated processes or curricula and creates movement toward curiosity, innovation, and development (Heifetz, 1994; Sinclair, 2007). Pat described her learning experience this way:

I thought I could teach like I [did] in high school. That changed, real fast. . . . I had to really dig in with a lot of people just to learn: How do people communicate with these kids? How do they know where they’re at? How do they know what’s inside their heads? I worked a lot with Speech, OT, and PT who would tell me some of their [the kids’] physical ailments that I would have to work around . . . The first step was learning from other people, and then experiencing it myself. I’m more hyper-vigilant now about what the students need. How do I communicate with them? How is it that I know what knowledge they have? How can I work with the team to get this information, what is the best way, or how can we adapt for what they need?

Kathy also emphasized that:

No matter what you know [it] is only going to be strengthened by working with others who know different things. It is really helpful to kind of bounce ideas off each other; it’s really helpful to hear what they are doing.

Connecting multiplistic perspectives and personally changing based on those connections, deepens learning and, as Sinclair (2007) expressed, furthers that learning when

159 individuals “see the connection between what one thinks . . . and the circumstances of one’s situation” (p. 43).

Learning is heightened by making conscious choices to interact with others and manifests itself by considering multiplistic perspectives and outcomes. It requires individuals to reflect on what they observe and learn which, thereby, influences them internally. Both Dewey

(1938/1997) and Sinclair (2007) were concerned about reflection as critical for ongoing learning.

Study participants shared stories about how they changed through observation and reflection. Both influenced them personally and were manifested externally as they became more intentional in collaborating, problem-solving, and considering others’ perspectives. Through this process, they learned to learn.

Learning to learn. Changing habits, being opened to detaching from what is known and previously practiced, appreciating and accepting others’ perspectives, and reflecting on multiplistic experiences to gain new meaning, are critical factors in learning to learn. These practices are vital to developing lifelong learning skills (Cornford, 2002).

Experiencing a new situation, examining it for meaning, and then embracing that newness to inspire future learning is paramount to ongoing learning (Mezirow, 1991). Dewey’s

(1938/1997), Mezirow’s (1991, 1994), and Senge’s (1994) foci on experience, exploration, and reflection is at play as well. Unless one opens oneself to consider and try something new, even if it is outside one’s comfort zone, learning will falter. Riach’s (2009) concept of “sticky moments”

(p. 356) describes those moments when individuals reflexively pay attention to how their learning forms new knowledge and makes way for forming new knowledge. They build habits in recognizing moments of learning that “stick” to their memory and affect future practices.

Although it can be incremental, the process of learning to learn changes how ongoing learning

160 occurs on a team as they deepen their learning awareness, integrate their experiences, and reflect on how they (and their learning) change, apply, practice, and socially-construct their shared meaning (Corlett, 2013).

Cindy shared: “It’s awesome to have all this experience and still know that I can keep growing and learning.” Similarly, Paul described how he experienced learning to learn:

You must see it to believe it, to understand that even though it’s just a little thing, in the long run, it becomes a lot. I didn’t know any of this when I first started; I thought it was straightforward, yet it is humbling to think—and as an artist it’s a silly assumption to say that “all people see and learn the same way.”

As one considers how learning to learn deepens lifelong learning, the practice, in its enabling and habiting, also allows for former concepts to be released and develop into new ideas.

The new ideas, fresh in their making, have opportunity to take route and move an individual or team toward new ways of being. This is another example of lines of flight in play.

Lines of Flight. The rhizome principle of asignifying rupture suggests that learning is enhanced when previous practices take flight from that which is grounded, known, or territorialized, to then be in a space to freely create new processes and ways of being that then return to reterritorialized (or reestablished) within the system. This concept is reimagined in

Ngui’s (2013) image and depicted in F, where territorialized thoughts are deterritorialize and, thereby, free to reterritorialize new ideas.

161

Figure 5.2. An imagining of asignifying rupture or lines of flight. From Drawings from A Thousand Plateaus: 1987, paragraph 13. by Marc Ngui (2013). Retrieved from http://www.bumblenut.com/drawing/images/plateaus/bigger/ 1000platos-1914-14.gif. Reprinted with permission.

Deleuze and Guattari (2002) described lines of flight as a movement of detaching from what is known, practiced, and habited, that is then released or unhinged. It is in the released space that adapting and promoting new thinking, exploring, and creating occurs. For lines of flight to occur, an organization must be open to making those leaps (and be accepting of insights that emerge from that open space). New opportunities deepen both learning and adapting capacities within a complex organization and deepen comfort for not knowing the full answer or result. These deepening movements mirror how rhizomes grow, always in conflict with their environment yet resilient and ever-moving toward new territory. As such, rhizomes remain in constant, nomadic, conflict-facing, and barrier-overcoming lives, forming for us metaphors of intermezzo connections, learning that dwells in the middle, fluidity (not static or linear), offering opportunities for adapting, moving in new directions, creating, reaching for new growth, and

162 transforming. We change when we face conflict in our environment and navigate that conflict with learned and practiced skill, resiliency, and strength.

As mentioned earlier, Deleuze and Guattari described this as becoming other, innovating from what was to what can be. Lines of flight, and the movement toward reterritorializing ideas into new thinking, aligns well with triple-loop learning (Peschl, 2007) in that it propels thinking outside what can be seen, measured, or has been territorialized as grounded beliefs, and reestablishes the problem and solution into something that is possible.

An example of lines of flight in action within the school was in how the administration reinvented admissions. The department had previously worked in a vacuum; data collected and acted upon was not considered vital to other departments’ processes. Admissions was viewed as a gate to go through when bringing in new students and nothing more; once opened and passed through, the gate was latched until the next need for recruitment and admission.

With new administration having identified recruitment and growth as vitally important to the overall organization’s health, and recognizing that admissions was the first step in accepting new students and realizing new revenue, other departments began connecting with admissions to integrate with their processes and provide the necessary data to account for student retention.

Douglas viewed it as a positive step toward building connection and community. He explained,

“People from other departments are now coming to me asking, ‘Can you help with this?’ ‘Can you attach the word admissions to this issue to help push it through and get it done?’”

Admissions and the staff had become other by allowing their thinking to take flight and to consider new ways of accomplishing tasks.

The processes that were previously territorialized (or grounded) became deterritorialized, changed as something new, and then reterritorialized as a connected and collaborative process.

163

Attaching to old processes or ways of being is a human condition that often appears when change occurs. Some agents may have emotional ties to former processes and wish to hold onto their territories, habits, and the way they have done things in the past (Bridges, 1991). However, constructing and adopting the new processes could not have occurred unless the individuals were willing to unlearn what they knew before, and remain open for new learning to be practiced.

Unlearning

Unlearning is an important component of the learning process, a concept that has few empirical studies and, yet, is an important aspect of how learning occurs. Unlearning is described as the release of knowledge that is no longer relevant or helpful, and is required when knowledge becomes obsolete and, within an organizational context, might (in its obsolescence) mislead decisions or block ongoing learning (Hedberg, 1981; Newstrom, 1983; Prahalad & Bettis, 1986;

Starbuck, 1996). It is a component of learning that is often unexplored regarding its effect on growth or change.

Unlearning, even in its limited connection with learning objectives or conversations, is a vital aspect of ongoing learning. Recognizing what needs to be unlearned (or what has been unlearned) makes way for new knowledge. For example, engaging in exploratory and reflective conversations about what has been learned and unlearned at the end of a project can provide alternative ways of working when new projects are launched. This notion aligns well with single-loop, double-loop, and triple-loop learning and events, as when questions that explore possibilities beyond the obvious allow individuals to reflect on what has been unlearned based on those new possibilities (Dewey, 1938/1997; Flood & Romm, 1996; Groot & Maarleveld, 2000).

Reflecting on experiences of unlearning triggered the greatest pause during participants’ storytelling. Most had never considered the concept or had never thought about what it meant for them, either personally or professionally. Upon reflection (and within the context of the school

164 environment), it became clear that unlearning played a significant role in how individuals viewed their work as well as their personal lives. They saw things differently as they grew beyond fixed or structured learning. Perceptions and assumptions changed. Pat expressed it in this way,

“Unlearning has helped me grow as a person because even in my daily life, I see things and see people so much differently than I did before.” Paul’s experience of unlearning was humbling for him; he noticed how his perception of others shifted when he realized how he needed to see and engage with students in different ways than in the past. He recognized becoming someone different than who he was before beginning his role. He saw himself as a teacher differently; he saw his students differently. Paul said:

I didn’t know any of this [coming into the school]. I thought it would be straightforward and it was really humbling to realize that it wasn’t. I came in thinking, “Okay . . . all people see the same, therefore, if I make this work they’ll all like it.” I was wrong. You must be sensitive to each [person]. This is what I came away with from this experience. From the point of view of the students that I work with, it changed my perception of what they can do, and what they can’t do.

Becoming other. Douglas’s team worked in a vacuum before shifts occurred in how he, his team, and other members of the greater team began to work together. His (and his team’s) work and relationships emerged from a solely focused, transactional model for student admission, to becoming other—one of interacting and collaborating.

This is not something that happened overnight; it was through building relationships, discovering, and appreciating the value, efficiency, and care that the team rhizomatically self- organized around thereby developing complementary needs and outcomes. The organization and its work is complex and non-linear; the team members work with people (students, parents, communities, administration, and other team members) who are also complex.

In complex systems, known, striated processes and outcomes are difficult to predict or even plan. It is within a willingness to change, become other, and unlearn habits that do not serve

165 a current model that learning, relationships, and work-products have opportunity to adapt and change. Complex systems become nested and interdependent as opposed to singular and independent (Plowman et al., 2007); new habits are formed that encourage multiplistic thinking

(and . . . and . . . and . . . ), unlearning to make way for new learning to occur, and an openness for a team and its members to reshape their identities.

Socially-networked. Bringing team members together, enabling them to build relationships, to unlearn old processes, to learn from each other, and to work collaboratively toward solutions are indicators of a team that is socially-network. J. Scott and Carrington (2011) refer to these relational indicators as informal relations that, in large-scale systems such as the school, form cohesive, sub-groupings, somewhat like kinship structures as reported in the

Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). As they form, build trust, and contribute freely, agency in decision-making and independent thinking is deepened. Agents move in and out of processes with ease and efficiency.

Through these interactions, members of the inter-professional team began to understand how what had previously been viewed as a mere gate through which to pass, Admissions connected team members and, in doing so, increased individuals’ relationships, learning, and capacity to seek each other’s knowledge to deepen their own. Those engaged in the social network adapted their former processes, unlearned their former ways of being and doing, and learned and applied new admissions-type verbiage and techniques to their own processes, thereby streamlining student enrollment, engagement, and transition process. The students’ and team members’ experiences became more connected and clear due to the social networks that were influenced at the admissions enrollment table.

166

The storylines and themes that emerged have painted a picture of an inter-professional team that has lived and learned together through the changes they have experienced within the school and within themselves. Their stories wove a rhizomatic landscape of emergent learning, change, connection, and relationship. As I listened to their stories, (and subsequently analyzed them for meaning), I noticed that they were not held together, neat and picture-perfect, as one might anticipate. One might expect that the team’s experiences at work would act like a well-oiled machine, Cartesian and coordinated, much like viewing a meticulously maintained, mowed lawn from above—evenly clipped, lush and carpet-like. However, when one views the underside of a lawn, one notices the twisted, turned, and multi-directional path that a rhizome

(such as grass) takes. The view from the top does not tell the full story of what is occurring beneath or below.

The team learned and changed not based on one edict, plan, or formula; their learning and adapting became a practice of learning and unlearning, adapting and changing, a messy plot of shifting themselves to practice new ways of being, together as a team and together with their students. Like rhizome, their lived experiences took flight dances, which took them further into a connected, multiplistic, heterogeneous, and cartographical journey.

Conclusion

Rhizome philosophy and its principles of connection, heterogeneity, multiplicity, asignifying rupture(s), and cartography, are currently embraced and practiced in a growing number of educational systems (e.g., Cormier, 2008, 2011; Gough, 2004). This prompted my curiosity to see where or how it might also exist within an organization’s inter-professional teams’ work. I was curious about how rhizomatic thinking and ways of being might inform or influence a team’s work and how they interact and grow together. As I listened to, studied, and analyzed the stories told, I concluded that learning and adapting frameworks described

167 previously were evident in the team’s work and that rhizome principles expanded those evidences. Transformational, reflective, adaptive, and socially-networked (interlocking, intersecting, and interwoven) behaviors were noticed in the experiences the participants shared

(Dewey, 1916, 1933, 1938/1997; Mezirow, 1981, 1991, 1994; J. Scott & Carrington, 2011).

However, and importantly, behaviors strongly aligned with rhizomatic principles (particularly becoming other, lines of flight, and unlearning), suggesting that an RLO approach, offers a new lens through which opportunities for how teams can expand their capacities for learning, adapting, and change as a socially networked model moves beyond the rudimentary processes found in traditional frameworks.

Rhizome theory —and applying its principles (see Adkins, 2015; Deleuze & Guattari,

2002; and Deleuze & Parnet, 2002)—deepens the learning and adapting philosophies and theories explored earlier and paves a way for expanding learning and adapting scholarship and practice in organizations. Table 5.1 illustrates connections between rhizome theory principles and previously explored learning and adapting theories and frameworks, including the new framework, RLO.

168

Table 5.1

Relationship Between Learning/Adaptation Theories and Frameworks and Principles of Rhizome Theory

LEARNING/ RHIZOME THEORY PRINCIPLES ADAPTING THEORIES & Connection Heterogeneity Multiplicity Asignifying Cartography FRAMEWORKS rupture(s)

Social & Interactive Interaction; Continuity Reflection Resiliency to Motion and Learning (Dewey, reflective and inquiry meet new movement; 1916, 1933, thinking with others conditions learning is a 1938/1997) moving force

Single-, Double-, & Idea exchange Epistemo- Learning Exploring Generative Triple-loop Learning and reflection existential about variables learning; (Argyris & Schon, change learning movement 1978; McNamara, 2006)

Transformational Co-construction Reflexive Sticky Disorienting Individual Learning (Mezirow transformation moments; dilemma agency 1981, 1991, 1994) learning to learn

Learning Organizations Collective Learning Idea Learn to Generative (Senge, 1990, 1994) aspiration formed generation; disorganize learning multilaterally; learning to diversity learn

Rhizomatic Learning in Co-construction; Knowledge Emergence; Lines of Fluid; Organizations (RLO) relational negotiated; discovery; flight; flow; boundary- interdisciplinary; dwelling in becoming spanning; diversity the middle; other; nomadic living in unlearning movement question

Summary

I entered this case study from a naturalist paradigm and an interpretive constructionism mindset. My intention was to learn from the participants’ view and their experiences of their world, the meanings they held and the awareness they achieved. As Rubin and Rubin (2012) argued, “the core of understanding is learning what people make of the world around them, how

169 people interpret what they encounter, and how they assign meanings and values to events or objects” (p. 19).

My inquiry into the study was to see if rhizomatic principles were evident in an inter-professional team’s ability to learn and adapt while working together. Was connection, multiplicity, heterogeneity, asignifying rupture(s), and cartography apparent in the stories they told and, if so, how did they differ from, enhance, improve, or limit the various legacy learning principles that were presented? If rhizomatic principles existed, could they lend themselves to expand learning frameworks from which to follow and develop? Was rhizomatic-principled learning in organizations a new framework that could be in service toward furthering learning in organizations?

The study participants came to their interviews from a holistic perspective; their experiences were influenced from both their organizational and personal experiences. They lived in a culture that was shifting toward being more open, connected, and inclusive. Their former culture of structured, striated teaching processes was changing to one based on Gentle Teaching principles both in and beyond the classroom. Gaining comfort with the unknown, remaining curious for what might be—rather than following a formulaic rulebook—offered opportunity to grow and appreciate diverse perspectives. There was a shifting landscape to traverse and the staff gained their footing willingly and gracefully.

I was also reminded that culture often becomes invisible to the researcher and participant.

I keenly listened to each person’s telling, the language they used, and remained aware of any assumptions that may be forming (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). My listening prompted me to ask for them to move deeper into their stories in ways that provided greater texture and meaning. Their metaphors were rich with meaning and often surprised and delighted them.

170

I also realized that I needed to step away from any of my own interpretation and allow the stories to unfold in their own way. Vaill (1996) described this as:

a phenomenological reduction . . . [the] decision to try to let the thing we encounter be what it is, separate from our perception of it. This entails a recognition of our natural tendency to impute meaning to it, to have already decided what it means. (p. 161)

The stories were told from the participants’ lived experiences, and the information that I gathered was unique, descriptively “thick.” Stake (1995) cites Clifford Geertz’s explanation of thick description: “Not complexities objectively described; [but] the particular perceptions of the actors. Can readers accept subjective description? Often, the researcher’s aim is not veridical representation so much as stimulation of further reflection, optimizing readers’ opportunity to learn” (p. 42).

These implications of interpretation—allowing stories to organically unfold rhizomatically and listening with a keen ear for connected themes—were reminders for me, as researcher, that I was being trusted to hold the container that held their lived experiences. Each participant entered our space with willingness to share; each person appeared confident, assured about their role, and ready to tell about their experiences. Like well-mowed grass, their outer demeanor appeared pulled together, almost indistinguishable from the other. It was when their reflections emerged that the tangled meanderings of their lived experiences truly became evident, when their messy, rhizomatic insights charted their cartographical journey of learning and adapting.

Limitations of the Study

This study was conducted in a residential rehabilitation school and, due to the confidential and ethical nature that exists within such an organization, pseudonyms were used to protect the participants’ identity, publishing recordings or photos were not permitted, disclosure of students’ names or other identifiers were not permitted, and other identifying factors were

171 restricted (e.g., descriptions of the environment, buildings, or classrooms). Students, due to their age and limitations, are protected from any external interactions or observations other than those that are permitted by guardians and administration. Study participants were invited to participate and volunteered at will. These factors may or may not be the same in a study conducted in an organization that is not as compelled by such confidentiality requirements.

Although invitations to participate were distributed system-wide and an effort was made by the researcher and the sponsor to encourage participation, it is possible that not all roles

(positions or tenures) were represented. There were also time and space limitations placed on the interview parameters. Schedules, work load and demand, and the school-year calendar restricted the allotted time that I could spend with each participant. We met in a small, remotely situated meeting room, one where complete confidentiality could be ensured.

From a methodological aspect, this study was conducted through a qualitative, constructionist lens. As an exploratory case study, its intention was to derive meaning from individuals’ stories regarding learning and adapting while working on an inter-professional team.

The scope of the findings from this study are limited to educational organizations, therefore the case study cannot claim transparency.

Like other research methods, qualitative studies have limitations. To reduce those limitations, the researcher must pursue trustworthiness by establishing four criteria, those of transferability, credibility, confirmability, and dependability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). From a transferability standpoint, the method of organizational storytelling, thematic analysis, and social network analysis can be used in future work.

The findings from this study may or may not be relevant to other organizational contexts.

Individuals’ stories will be distinct in each situation and context, thereby allowing for a rich,

172 textured outcome that is the result of capturing meaning that is connected and personally relevant.

Research topic. This was a theoretical case study with an objective to understand if rhizomatic principles were evident, and if they enhanced or limited other learning theories.

Secondarily, I wanted to see whether there were valuable insights to be derived in looking at inter-professional teams through the lens of Deleuze and Guattari’s (2002) increasingly influential rhizome theory.

Although there is very limited information about rhizome philosophy and its principles being implemented and adapted within various organizations—other than the scant data from a select group of educational experiences applying rhizomatic learning—the knowledge drawn from this case study reinforces the fact that rhizomatic principles provide a valid and promising framework for understanding learning organizations; rhizome theory can be applied insightfully toward learning beyond an educational context. Storylines, and narrative and thematic analysis are powerful entities that, when constructed (and understood), can deepen organizations’ ways of working. When conceiving of a constructivist approach to researching a topic, science’s goal is to construct a universal understanding. In this case study, it is important to recognize that the stories told were unique to the individuals and to the organization, not to me. Yet there exists a common thread that ties the narrative together. As Stake (1995) argued, “although the reality we seek is of our own making, it is a collective making” (p. 102). To that end, it is also the case study researcher’s privilege to deliver their own generalizations, yet provide enough information for the reader to draw upon their own generalizations, as well, and thereby providing room to contribute to broader research (Stake, 1995).

173

The case study can contribute and be “a prelude to much social research, not just to new case studies” (Yin, 2012, p. 29). The case study results offer opportunity toward furthering research regarding how a collectives’ work can be enhanced by analyzing individuals’ stories about their learning and adapting experiences, and how, by applying rhizome principles and other learning frameworks, it can serve to deepen ongoing learning.

Potential bias. A challenge for researchers analyzing narratives is to find balance within the construction formed through analysis. It is natural for researchers to form their own interpretations, and to make assessments about what they hear or observe and, therefore, confront unintentional personal bias based on those assessments. Interpretation can, in of itself, be considered as constructing meaning. This, of course, was a challenge and one that I actually hold at bay.

Argyris’s Ladder of Inference model (as described in Senge, 1994, pp. 242–261) demonstrated how we often and naturally attach meaning to what we hear or see based on our worldviews and the mental models we have formed based on those observations. It was important to the research to focus only on what was being said, not to what I inferred based on participant stories. Bias is a human condition and is inevitable; listening for pure data was the study’s intention (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). In concurrence with Burke’s (1997) views, the use of low-inference descriptors—those descriptors that mirrored words and phrases expressed by the study participants (verbatims, direct quotations) was critical to the validity of the study and to focusing on remaining non-biased in my gathering.

As mentioned previously, it was important to practice reflexivity—self-awareness and critical self-reflection regarding my potential biases—while conducting the research. To that end,

174

I paid close attention to themes and storylines that emerged, not to what I interpreted the storyteller was saying or to what I thought the storyteller intended to say.

Implications for Leadership and Change

With change, there is opportunity to shift perspectives and motivations, deepen relationships and learning, become more aware, and develop capacity to adapt. The school experienced cultural change, not only from an administrative or organizational standpoint, but with each day’s encounters with students and staff. Each student who entered a classroom brought renewed needs, desires, experiences, and outlooks. The staff, with all their training and knowledge, reexamined moment by moment who they were, their way of being, and how they adapted to each situation. By default, and by need, they perpetually dwelled in the middle of things (Deleuze & Guattari, 2002). Being able to exist and serve in an ambiguous world was central to their work.

Culture, and how individuals respond and learn through change and innovation, is influenced by the effectiveness of the leaders and how they behave (Fishman & Kavanaugh,

1989). Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and Strange (2002) argued: “Climate and culture, however, do not arise in a vacuum. Rather, they represent collective, social constructions—social constructions over which leaders have significant influence” (p. 732). The success of change, adapting to, and learning from change becomes the responsibility of both the leader and the collective working together.

It is in this space of change and learning that, as a scholar-practitioner, I see opportunity in which all individuals in all organizations can deepen their awareness about learning and adapting through change, and to expand the social networks within their organizations. Leaders can become increasingly curious about, and reflect upon, the stories and the meanings of the stories whom they serve.

175

Storytelling and analyzing stories’ themes provides a means to explore, learn, and make room to apply learning toward new ways of being and working. By practicing openness, listening, and appreciation for multiplistic, heterogeneous ideas, leaders can expand their capacity to lead in ways that nurture and are in service to shaping individuals and the environment in which they work. When agents have opportunity to stop, self-reflect, and practice reflexivity, they can discover the meaning drawn from their work.

The practice of stopping and reflecting, to have space to breathe and get in touch with what holds meaning for individuals, holds significant opportunity for growth in organizations today. Understanding how the essence of stories connect with each other, how stories can enrich learning, and the ways that opening to others’ learnings and perspectives nourishes the organization and its constituents.

There is also value in realizing that, antithetical to a standard hierarchical construct that organizations are often built upon and on which they often run, the ways that individuals work, tell stories, learn and adapt, and put into place new ideas and processes do not often follow a linear path. Often, the most creative and rich-in-meaning decisions are made in random, messy, rhizomatic, non-linear ways. Insights, experimentation, and curious investigation can flourish in ambiguous territory.

This study was designed to examine an inter-professional team’s lived experiences to come to know, through their stories, how they learn and adapt during their work-life. My interest was to explore whether rhizomatic learning principles were noticeable. Were they evident as alignments with other learning principles and theories or did they stand out as newly possible principles that would enhance their learning experiences? Rhizomatic learning had been practiced in a small sector of educational institutions. Could they also be applied in this context?

176

If the team was made aware of the possibilities of RLO’s principles, would they see them as adding value to how they work together now or in the future?

Although learning and adapting might be explained in part by some aspects of other theories explored, RLO appeared to embrace the findings with greater inclusion and descriptive capacity. For example, lines of flight and becoming other, in practice, creates ways of co-creating and forming new ways of being that abound beyond other traditional learning frameworks.

Throughout my career, my work has taken me into organizations that have been closed-minded, hierarchical, rank-and-file driven, and focused mostly on the bottom-line. In retrospect, my work has also afforded me opportunities within organizations that embrace learning, relationships, and collaboration as paramount in principle. I know how I felt, and how much I grew, learned, and contributed, while working in the organizations that promoted relationship and collaboration. I also know how I felt stymied while working in organizations that were hierarchical and that held fast to, and locked me into, former processes and routines.

As I listened to the stories of the participants’ experiences, I sensed a resounding embracing of those times when they grew in their learning and adapting, when they had the opportunity to safely make mistakes, practice new habits, and collaborate toward creative outcomes. I listened to their tellings of how they changed, unraveling perceptions of who they were and who they were to become.

Their stories (and the situations they described) offered insight into how rhizome principles could make their way into enhancing learning and adapting in organizations. The theme from which all other themes stemmed was the participants’ unlearning habits and becoming anew. Every individual and team had their own stories to tell, and, when seeking to

177 understand how learning and adapting occurred across a team, the moments where learning peaked, connected to elements that most influenced that learning. I see this as an opportunity to expand my practice by using storylines to develop (perhaps, co-create) learning programs and opportunities for further reflection.

Suggested Future Research

It has been argued that qualitative research holds less merit than studies conducted using quantitative methods (Seidman, 2013). However, by posing open-ended questions, probing for story, and listening for connected themes the study provided a richly constructed storyline framing an organization, and its inter-professional team’s life together, as well as insights into how they learn and adapt, insights that might not have been revealed through other research methods. Their reflections held meaning, were shared within a container of curiosity and trust.

Given the opportunity to further examine the results of the study, the team might consider how to explore or exploit change, learning, and adapting in the future. Also, from this study’s insights and outcomes, future research can be launched within other organizations, using the lens of rhizomatic theory.

How their learning and adapting stories connected to the learning theories and frameworks presented earlier is another consideration for future research. What I noticed was that rhizome principles were indeed aligned with other learning theories and frameworks, and reveal an opportunity to expand scholarship of learning and adapting in organizations. RLO holds promise.

A key rhizome principle that has the most opportunity to enhance learning theories and frameworks for future work is that of asignifying ruptures or lines of flight contributing to becoming other. In all the stories told, no one reflected how they and the team, consciously or

178 unconsciously deterritorialized a process, created a new one, and reterritorialized it within the culture. However, it clearly happened.

Questions for future research could frame how conflict arises (and is addressed) while deterritorializing occurs within or across a team. As one looks how rhizomes meander and grow—both disrupted and resilient as they negotiate their path of growth—one can also see how rhizomes are always in conflict with their environment. In their resiliency, they push forward negotiating suitable and open paths to take root and sprout.

Lines of flight, as thoughts and ideas are deterritorialized and reterritorialized, provide fertile ground for teams to explore and deepen awareness regarding how, even if not explicit, their creative pursuits enable them to develop skill in navigating conflict when it arises with a sense of grace and agility. The principal, Addison, introduced a new teaching practice within the school and change occurred, often creatively and spontaneously, suggesting that there is opportunity for further exploration (and exploitation) of how lines of flight and the process of becoming other, both individually and organizationally, can be powerful steps toward increasing awareness, learning, and adapting while working through conflicting ideas.

Final Reflections

Holding space for others to reflect, share, discover, and deepen awareness is a humbling and privileged experience. The notion that I was treading on sacred ground, both metaphorically and physically, did not escape me throughout this study. The time, skill, and heart-felt attention that each staff member at the school contributes every day is awe-inspiring. I can understand the emotional toll that it takes to do what they do; I spent only a fraction of their day with the study participants and yet was emotionally spent by the end of each interviewing day.

My time working in large, for-profit organizations mirrored many experiences shared.

My life’s work has afforded me the opportunity to navigate within learning development and

179 leadership development functions in organizations that have been, for the most part, hierarchical and bottom-line driven. In one organization, I used to work for, I recall a manager who was young and eager to impart change, and who was sincerely interested in each of the leadership team members’ thoughts and ideas. But it was a difficult shift for many of us to trust his intention and fully accept that he really wanted to know what we thought. Despite our doubts back then, I now see he was genuinely interested in us beyond our technical skill and cherished learning from mistakes.

Thankfully, that was early in my career and the impact he made on my life and how I viewed leadership, change, learning, and adapting prompted me to emulate how he led his teams.

I wanted my teams to learn from mistakes, to be creative, to break through the tired, structured processes that stymied creative thinking, to independently design new ways of working, and to grow in and from their strengths. Years later, when I became aware of rhizomatic learning and rhizome philosophy, everything connected for me; the principles made sense to me and aligned well with my own developmental experience.

Addison, refreshingly, also mirrored that way of being by working to make changes with how her staff taught, and how her students and staff learned. Gentle Teaching and learning principles align well with rhizome philosophy and, in exploring how the staff learns and adapts. I see promise for RLO to be further developed, shared, and implemented.

My next step in this journey is to take the outcomes of this case study, summarize them, and develop a learning product to facilitate for the staff who participated and others who wish to attend. Addison and her staff are interested in learning from it and, in repurposing the results, I will use their stories to help further their understanding of themselves and the ways they learn and adapt while in service to their students’ lives. This is not the end; their storyline as rhizome

180 will continue to take root and connect meaning for themselves and, likely, for others in their organization. I cannot think of a more gratifying quest.

This was a journey of curiosity, courage, and contemplation. My topic, RLO, has been met with both skepticism and encouragement. Drawn from a postmodern mindset, the philosophy’s principles dance on the edge of what most believe as plausible or real. And, yet, as one delves into its language and concepts, it is quite simple: when allowed full agency, it is how we, as humans, navigate and interact with our world. Earlier, I used a metaphor of meticulously shorn grass, neatly clipped, each blade standing in rows like attending soldiers. Yet, upon peering underground, one sees a tangled rhizome system that has no beginning or end. It’s messy and multi-directional; it moves and bends to wherever it can take root, growing even when faced with obstacles. As a gardener knows, rhizomes are most challenging to contain, yet display the most resiliency in how and where they grow.

That’s the point. When we are not contained, when our agency is not squelched or uprooted, astonishing growth and creativity can occur. When we can move through fertile ground to become other, things happen that are, perhaps, unpredictable, yet often surprising. We enter new territory, a place of insightfulness that can change us and those around us. We can collectively change the world in which we live.

Solnit (2014) writes about places and “the intersections of many changing forces passing through” (p. 1). Her writing instills a sense of place that reaches beyond a map tracing; it is one of transference and transformation. Solnit (2014) says:

To write about a place is to acknowledge that phenomena often treated separately—ecology, democracy, culture, storytelling, urban design, individual life histories and collective endeavors—coexist. They coexist geographically, spatially, in place, and to understand a place is to engage with braided narratives. (p. 1)

181

This study was about a place—a school, a building, its team—and it was also about the places that the individuals hold within themselves that transcend brick and mortar; their places come from their lived experiences that form meaning about who they become, who they continue to become, and how they see themselves within their collective endeavors. This was a story about their navigation through their work, their rhizomatic experiences that connected them with their team members and their students; it was about how they were provided multiplistic lenses through which to learn, engage, and grow; it was about giving them heterogeneous opportunities to deepen awareness; it was about causing them to reflect on how their life’s journey informed who they are today. Their stories braided intersections of personal and organizational change; they formed a rich cartography of how they learned and adapted.

As stories end, new stories begin. Always in the middle, like rhizome, there remains opportunity for words and remembrances to spring into new shoots of meaning.

As leaders and educators, we have a responsibility to hold space for exploration and discovery as stories are told and experiences are shared. The meaning derived from story becomes a life force that nourishes capacity to deepen connections, become other, and create beyond what we could ever imagine. I cannot think of a more noble pursuit.

182

Appendix

183

Appendix A: Study Participant Consent Form

Name of principle investigator: Renee Charney Name of organization: Antioch University Graduate School of Leadership and Change, PhD in Leadership and Change program Name of project: A Case Study Exploring An Interprofessional Team’s Lived Experiences: Rhizomatic Learning and Adapting Introduction: I am Renee Charney, a PhD in Leadership and Change Doctoral Candidate at Antioch University. I am researching how individuals learn and adapt while working together on an inter-professional team. This informed consent form’s purpose is to give you information about the study and to invite you to participate in this research. You may share information with anyone about this research; I invite you to take time to reflect on whether you want to participate or not. I am open to answering questions at any time during the research project and I invite you to ask questions for further understanding. Purpose of the research: The purpose of this project is to investigate the lived experiences of members of an inter-professional team. The individual stories that will be gathered are for purposes of understanding how individuals learn and adapt while working on an inter- professional team of teachers, administrators, therapists, and medical staff. Type of research intervention: This research will involve individual participation in an interview with me regarding your lived experience while working within your team. The interview questions are designed to prompt you to share your personal experience with regard to how you learn, lead, and adapt while working on your team. Each participant will be asked a series of questions in an interview that will take approximately 60 minutes. The questions are not designed to probe or gather any information regarding any information that was or is considered confidential in nature. Information regarding the organization’s clients will not be asked. Each of the interviews will be digitally recorded for research purposes and will be de-identified prior to publication or the sharing of the research results. I will be asking each individual to provide a pseudonym for further de-identification. These recordings (and any other information that may connect you to the study) will be kept in a locked, secured, and password protected location. Participant selection: You are being invited to participate in this research because I feel that your lived experience as team member at the organization will contribute to understanding how individuals learn, lead, and adapt while working on an inter-professional team; the results can further inform individual learning, leading, and adapting, as well as team development and participation in the future. Voluntary participation Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary; you may choose not to participate. You will not be penalized for your decision not to participate or for anything you contribute during the

184 study. Your position at the organization will not be affected by this decision or your participation. You may withdraw from this study at any time. If our interview has already taken place, you may request that the information you provided not be used in the research study. Risks Participants of this research study may have different opinions or have had different experiences regarding the topics that will be discussed during the interview; some of these opinions or recall of experiences could make participants feel uncomfortable. You do not have to answer any interview question that makes you feel uncomfortable and you may choose to decline participation during an interview without providing any reason. All measures possible will be employed by me to ensure your comfort during your participation and to honor your choices while participating in the study. Benefits There will be no direct benefits to you except for increased personal awareness as you share your story with me; your participation is likely to help us improve understanding of how individuals learn, lead, and adapt while working on an inter-professional team and will help future individuals and teams build capacity to learn, lead, and adapt. Reimbursements You will not be provided any monetary incentive to participate in this research study. Confidentiality All information that you share will be de-identified so that it cannot be connected back to you. Your real name will be replaced by a pseudonym in the research report and only the primary researcher will have access to the list connecting your name to the pseudonym. This list, along with digital recordings of the interviews, will be kept in a secure, locked location. Future publication The primary researcher, Renee Charney, reserves the right to include any results of this study in future scholarly presentations and/or publications. All information will be de-identified prior to publication. Right to refuse or withdraw You do not have to take part in this research if you do not wish to do so; you may withdraw from the study at any time without your organizational role being affected in any way. Who to contact If you have any questions, you may ask them now or later. If you have questions later, you may contact Renee Charney at [email protected]; 603.714.1280 (cell).

185

If you have any ethical concerns about this research study, contact Philomena Essed, Chair, Institutional Review Board, Antioch University PhD in Leadership and Change; email: [email protected]. Consent: I have read the foregoing information, or it has been read to me. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about it and any questions I have had have been answered to my satisfaction. I consent voluntarily to be a participant in this research study.

Print name of participant: ______-

Signature of participant: ______

Date: ______month/day/year (xxxx) To be filled out by the researcher or the person taking consent: I confirm that the participant was given the opportunity to ask questions about the study, and all questions asked by the participant have been answered correctly and fully to the best of my ability. I confirm that the individual has not been coerced into giving consent and that their consent has been given freely and voluntarily. A copy of this Informed Consent Form has been provided to the participant. Print name of researcher/person taking the consent: ______Signature of researcher/person taking the consent: ______Date: ______month/day/year (xxxx)

Investigator: Renee Charney Antioch University Graduate School of Leadership and Change PhD in Leadership and Change [email protected]

186

Appendix B: Guiding Questionnaire for Interviews

The focus was on the interviewees’ lived experiences with learning and adapting; the questions were semi-structured, intended as a guideline and not as a checklist.

Hello (name), Thank you, again, for being part of this study and for talking with me about your experiences of working within your team. 1. What would be a peak moment when you learned while working in your role and on your team? What was the experience like for you? What emotions were evoked at that time? 2. Using a metaphor, how would you describe “growth” while working on your team? What has been your experience with growing? 3. Tell a story about when you needed to shift your thinking to another’s point of view while working on the team. What was that like for you? What did you notice about yourself during that experience? 4. What’s a word that would describe your own leadership while working on the team? Say more about how you came to name it so. How does it “show up” in your work? 5. Sometimes we need to let go of what we know, and that which we hold as sure, in order for us to grow and change. Tell me how “unlearning” has contributed to who, how, or where you are today.

187

Appendix C: Copyright Permissions

Permission for Figure 1.1

From: Ian Mackean [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:01 PM To: Renee Chaney Subject: Re: Request for permission to use rhizome image

Hi Renee, Thank you for your email and letter of 28th August 2017. On behalf of my late father D.G. Mackean I grant you permission to use his drawing in the way you describe in your letter. You may not have realized that I am the son of the author of the drawing, but in view of this it would probably be better to put c/o Ian Mackean, rather than aka. Regards the date, my father probably first drew it in the mid to late 1960s, but to the best of my knowledge it was first published in electronic form, which is the version you have, in 2008. So I’d suggest 2008 as an appropriate date. I am sorry that because of new terms and conditions laid down by my web host my site is often taken offline towards the end of each month for exceeding its traffic limit. It then comes back on at the start of a new month. I have not yet decided what, if anything, to do about this, but in case anyone involved in assessing your work is unlucky enough to try to access the site while it is offline you can, if you wish, state in the citation that you received the image via a ‘personal communication’ with me, which is true since I emailed you a superior quality image, and give my email address. I hope this is what you need.

Best wishes

Ian Mackean

188

Permission for Figure 5.2

Renee Charney, PhD Candidate (Antioch University Graduate School for Leadership and Change) [email protected] August 27, 2017 Marc Ngui [email protected]

Dear Marc: I am completing a doctoral dissertation at Antioch University entitled: Rhizomatic Learning and Adapting: A Case Study Exploring an Interprofessional Team’s Lived Experiences. I would like your permission to reprint in my dissertation excerpts from the following: Drawings from A Thousand Plateaus: 1987, chapter 1, paragraph 14. http://www.bumblenut.com/drawing/art/plateaus/index_big.shtml Figure 5.2. An imagining of asignifying rupture or lines of flight. From Drawings from A Thousand Plateaus: 1987, chapter 1, paragraph 14. Marc Ngui, (2013). The image to be reproduced is:

This dissertation will appear in these three archives: a. Proquest Dissertations and Theses Database and that Proquest is a Print on Demand Publisher http://www.proquest.com/products-services/pqdt.html b. Ohiolink Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center and that Ohiolink ETD Center is an open access archive https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ c. AURA: Antioch University Repository and Archive and that AURA is an open access archive http://aura.antioch.edu/ If you agree to this, please give me your permission via reply email. Thank you very much; I appreciate your help. Sincerely, Renee Charney PhD Candidate

From: Marc Ngui Date: August 27, 2017 at 5:41:44 PM EDT To: Renee Charney Subject: Re: Request: Please review and consider granting permission to use image

Hi Renee,

Here it is signed.

I'd love to see the final dissertation when complete.

189

Cheers,

Marc

PERMISSION GRANTED FOR THE USE REQUESTED ABOVE:

Signature removed for privacy

______

Marc Ngui Date: August 28th 2017

190

References

Ademollo, F. (2011). The Cratylus of Plato: A commentary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Adkins, B. (2015). Deleuze and Guattari's A thousand plateaus: A critical introduction and guide. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Ann, C., & Carr, A. N. (2011). Inside outside leadership development: Coaching and storytelling potential. Journal of Management Development, 30(3), 297–310. doi:10.1108/02621711111116216

Argyris, C. (1992). Overcoming organizational defenses. Journal for Quality & Participation, 15(2), 26–28.

Argyris, C. (1994). Initiating change that perseveres. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(3), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040003006

Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Business.

Argyris, C., and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in practice. Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Assistive Technology Industry Association. (n.d.) What is AT? Retrieved from https://www.atia.org/at-resources/what-is-at/#what-is-assistive-technology

Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (n.d.). Overview. Retrieved from http://asean.org/asean/about-asean/overview/

Austin, J., & Delaney, P. F. (1998). Protocol analysis as a tool for behavior analysis. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 15, 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392922

Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bateson, M. C. (1994) Peripheral visions: Learning along the way. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2

Becker, K. L. (2005). Individual and organisational unlearning: Directions for future research. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(7), 659–670. https://doi.org/ 10.1.1.127.6689

191

Becker, K. L., & Delahaye, B. L. (2006). Unlearning as a lifelong learning strategy: An important pathway for transitions. In D. Orr, F. Nouwens, C. McPherson, R. E. Harreveld, & P. A. Danaher (Eds.), Lifelong learning: partners, pathways, and pedagogies. Keynote and refereed papers from the 4th International Lifelong Learning Conference (pp. 26-31). Rockhampton, Australia: Central Queensland University Press.

Bell, A. D., & Tomlinson, P. B. (1980). Adaptive architecture in rhizomatous plants. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 80(2), 125–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095- 8339.1980.tb01662.x

Bentz, V., & Shapiro, J. (1998). Mindful inquiry in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Biehl, J., & Locke, P. (2010). Deleuze and the anthropology of becoming. Current Anthropology, 51(3), 317–351. https://doi.org/10.1086/651466

Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-land.” Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 997–1035. https://doi.org/10.2307/256618

Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Bolton. G. (2005). Reflective practice. Writing and professional development (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

Bonabeau, E. (2009). Decisions 2.0: The power of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 45–52. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/decisions-20-the-power-of-collective-intelligence/

Bonabeau, E., & Meyer, C. (2001). Swarm intelligence: A whole new way to think about business. Harvard Business Review, 79(5), 106–114. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2001/05/swarm-intelligence-a-whole-new-way-to-think-about- business?cm_sp=Article-_-Links-_-Comment

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). An overview of intentional change from a complexity perspective. Journal of Management Development, 25(7), 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710610678445

Boyce, M. E. (1995). Collective centering and collective sense-making in the stories and storytelling of one organization. Organization Studies, 16(1), 107–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600106

192

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Burke, J. R. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282–293.

Charney, R. (2015). Using organizational storytelling to understand and assimilate rhizomatic principles as they further possibilities for connected, multiplistic, heterogeneous, and cartographic learning, leading, and adapting. [Unpublished essay]. Antioch University, Yellow Springs, OH.

Chia, R. (1999). A rhizomic model of organizational change and transformation: Perspective from a metaphysics of change. British Journal of Management, 10(3), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.5840/process200332223

Cisney, V. W. (2014). Becoming-Other: Foucault, Deleuze, and the political nature of thought. Foucault Studies, 17(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i17.4252

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, M. C., & Wilson, A. L. (1991). Context and rationality in Mezirow's theory of transformational learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848191041002002

Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M., & Rhodes, C. (2005). Learning/becoming/organizing. Organization, 12(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508405051186

Colebrook, C. (2002). Gilles Deleuze. London, UK: Routledge.

Corlett, S. (2013). Participant learning in and through research as reflexive dialogue: Being “struck” and the effects of recall. Management Learning, 44(5), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507612453429

Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(5), 1–8. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=innovate

Cormier, D. (2011, November 5). Rhizomatic learning—Why we teach [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/2011/11/05/rhizomatic-learning-why-learn/

Cornford, I. R. (2002). Learning-to-learn strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370210141020

Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (Eds.). (1999). Doing qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

193

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, R. L., & Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2002). Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning. Management Learning, 33(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507602331002

Cunliffe, A. L. (2008). Orientations to social constructionism: Relationally responsive social constructionism and its implications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning, 39(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607087578

Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2008). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York, NY: Routledge.

Dedoose Version 7.6.17 (2017), web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data (2015). Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC (www.dedoose.com).

Deleuze, G. (1983). Nietzsche and philosophy (H. Tomlinson, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations, 1972–1990. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2002). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Deleuze, G., & Lapoujade, D. (2006). Two regimes of madness: Texts and interviews 1975–1995. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext.

Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (2002). Dialogues II. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Retrieved from Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/852/852-h/852-h.htm

194

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: Heath.

Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. (Original work published 1938)

Didion, J. (2006). We tell ourselves stories in order to live: Collected nonfiction. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Dirkx, J. M. (1997). Nurturing soul in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 79–98 https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7409

Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (2007). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.

Dyer, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 613–620. https://doi.org/10.2307/258920

Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business Review, 86 (7/8), 60–67. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/07/the-competitive-imperative-of- learning

Edwards, R., Hanson, A., Raggatt, P., & Open University. (1996). Boundaries of adult learning. London, UK: Routledge.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667087

Ernst, C., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2011). Boundary spanning leadership: Six practices for solving problems, driving innovation, and transforming organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (Eds.). (1991). A case for case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Finlay, L., & Gough, B. (2003). Reflexivity. A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. London, UK: Blackwell.

Fishman, N., & Kavanaugh, L. (1989). Searching for your missing quality link. Journal for Quality and Participation, 12(4), 28–32.

195

Fletcher, D. E., & Watson, T. J. (2007). Entrepreneurship, management learning and negotiated narratives: Making it otherwise for us – otherwise for them. Management Learning 38(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607073020

Fletcher, J. K. (2012). The relational practice of leadership. In S. Ospina & M. Uhl–Bien (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership research (pp. 83–106). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. (1996). Contours of diversity management and triple loop learning. Kybernetes, 25(7/8): 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607073020

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Forman, P. (2012). On the historical forms of knowledge production and curation: Modernity entailed disciplinarity, postmodernity entails antidisciplinarity. Osiris, 27(1), 56–97. https://doi.org/10.1086/667823

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1970)

Gabriel, Y. (2000). Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions and fantasies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gabriel, Y., & Connell, N. A. D. (2010). Co-creating stories: Collaborative experiments in storytelling. Management Learning, 41(5), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609358158

Gardner, H., & Laskin, E. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Review, 86(3), 109–116.

Gentle Teaching USA. (n.d.). What is Gentle Teaching? Retrieved from http://gentleteaching.com/us/gentle-teaching/

Gough, N. (2004). RhizomANTically becoming-cyborg: Performing posthuman pedagogies Educational Philosophy & Theory, 36(3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469- 5812.2004.00066.x

Graham, V. (1994). “Into the body of another”: Mary Oliver and the poetics of becoming other. Papers on Language & Literature, 30(4), 352–374.

Groot, A., & Maarleveld, M. (2000). Demystifying facilitation in participatory interventions. (Gatekeeper Series, No. 89). London, UK: International Institute for Environment & Development, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihood Programme. Retrieved from http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/6163/Demystifying.pdf?sequence=1

196

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hawkins, P. (1991). The spiritual dimension of the learning organisation. Management Learning, 22(3), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050769102200304

Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (Vol. 1, pp. 3–27). London, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 24(1), 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024001684

Holmqvist, M. (2009). Complicating the organization: A new prescription for the learning organization? Management Learning, 40(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609104340

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Hutchings, M. J., & de Kroon, H. (1994). Foraging in plants: The role of morphological plasticity in resource acquisition. Advances in Ecological Research, 25, 159–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60215-9

Isaacs, W. N. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(93)90051-2

Janićijević, N. (2012). The influence of organizational culture on organizational preferences towards the choice of organizational change strategy. Economic Annals, 57(193), 25–51.

Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in the social context. New York, NY: Croom Helm.

Jarvis, P. (1995). Adult and continuing education: Theory and practice. Abingdon, UK: Psychology Press.

Jarvis, P. (1999). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory from practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jowett, B. (1892). The dialogues of Plato. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=bdt5AAAAIAAJ&rdid=book- bdt5AAAAIAAJ&rdot=1

Kang, D. J. (2007). Rhizoactivity: Toward a postmodern theory of lifelong learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(3), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713606297445

Kearney, R. (2002). On stories. London, UK: Routledge.

Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London, UK: Sage.

197

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Accelerate. Harvard Business Review, 90(11), 43–58. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/11/accelerate

Kramer, A. (2013). Ready for the future: The four principles of nomadic learning in organizations. On the Horizon, 21(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121311323049

Latham, S. (2013, June). Leadership research: An arts-informed perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492613491434

Lather, P. (1992). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and post-structural perspectives. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543529

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press

Lawley, S. (2005). Deleuze's rhizome and the study of organization: Conceptual movement and an open future. TAMARA: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 3(4), 36–49.

Leafgren, S. (2009). Reuben's fall: A rhizomatic analysis of disobedience in kindergarten. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (S2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009

Levy, J. S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management & Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388940701860318

Lewin, R., & Regine, B. (2000). The soul at work: Listen, respond, let go: Embracing complexity science for business success. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Lewis, C. S. (2001). The chronicles of Narnia collection. London, UK: Collins.

Lian, A. P. (2011). Reflections on language-learning in the 21st century: The rhizome at work. Rangsit Journal of Arts and Sciences, 1(1), 5–17.

Lian, A. P., & Pineda, M. V. (2014). Rhizomatic learning: “As… when… and if…” A strategy for the ASEAN community in the 21st century. Beyond Words, 2(1), 1–28.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

198

Martin, J. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1(4), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.4.339

Mavin, S., & Cavaleri, S. (2004). Viewing learning organizations through a social learning lens. The Learning Organization, 11(3), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470410533030

Maynes, M. J., Pierce, J. L., & Laslett, B. (2008). Telling stories: The use of personal narratives in the social sciences and history. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

McGee, J. J. (1992). Gentle teaching's assumptions and paradigm. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(4), 869–872. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-869

McGee, J. J., & Menolascino, F. J. (1991). Beyond gentle teaching: A nonaversive approach to helping those in need. New York, NY: Plenum.

McLean, D. (2014). Understanding relational agility: Exploring constructs of relational leadership through story (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://aura.antioch.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=etds

McLean, D. (2015). Exploring constructs of relational leadership through story. Sage Research Methods Cases. London, UK: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014557472.

McNamara, C. (2006). Field guide to consulting and organizational development: A collaborative and systems approach to performance, change and learning. Minneapolis, MN: Authenticity Consulting.

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of learning and adult education. Adult Education, 32(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171368103200101

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(4), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369404400403

Moen, T. (2006). Reflections in the narrative research approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methodology, 5(4), 56−69. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500405

Moore, M. J. (2005). The transtheoretical model of the stages of change and the phases of transformative learning: Comparing two theories of transformational change. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(4), 394–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344605279386

Moravec, J. W. (2008, November 20), Knowmads in society 3.0, [Blog post].Retrieved from www.educationfutures.com/2008/11/20/knowmads-in-society-30/

Moravec, J. W. (2013a). Knowmad society: Borderless work and education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

199

Moravec, J. W. (2013b). Knowmad society: The "new" work and education. On the Horizon, 21(2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121311322978

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3

National Park Service. (n.d.). Quaking aspen. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/brca/learn/nature/quakingaspen.htm

Newstrom, J. W. (1983). The management of unlearning: Exploding the “clean slate” fallacy. Training & Development Journal, 37 (8), 36–39.

Ngui, M. (2013). Drawings from A Thousand Plateaus: 1987, chapter 1, paragraph 14. Retrieved from http://www.bumblenut.com/drawing/images/plateaus/bigger/1000platos- 1914-14.gif

Noriega, F. M., Heppell, S., Segovia-Bonet, N., & Heppell, J. (2013). Building better learning and learning better building, with learners rather than for learners. On the Horizon, 21(2), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121311323030

Peschl, M. F. (2007). Triple-loop learning as foundation for profound change, individual cultivation, and radical innovation. Construction processes beyond scientific and rational knowledge. Constructivist Foundations 2(2/3), 136–145.

Plowman, D. A., Solansky, S., Beck, T. E., Baker, L., Kulkarni, M., & Travis, D. V. (2007). The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.004

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and human sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Pollard, A. (2005). Reflective teaching (2nd ed.). London, UK: Continuum.

Post-it (n.d.). History timeline: Post-it® notes. Retrieved from http://www.post- it.com/3M/en_US/post-it/contact-us/about-us/

Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250070602

Rehorick, D., & Bentz, V. (2009). Transformative phenomenology. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Reilly, M.A. (2009). Restoring points of potentiality: Sideshadowing in elementary classrooms. Reading Teacher, 63(4), 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.63.4.4

Reilly, M.A. (2011a, August 14). How ready are you for the connected child at your school? In the classroom? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://maryannreilly.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-ready-are-you-for-connected-child.html

200

Reilly, M.A. (2011b, September 27). We are Pando: Rhizomatic learning. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://maryannreilly.blogspot.com/2011/09/we-are-pando-rhizomatic-learning.html

Reilly, M.A. (2013, February 1). The random and the intentional: Growing a business rhizomatically. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://maryannreilly.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-random-and-intentional-growing.html

Rhizome. (n.d.). English Oxford living dictionaries. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rhizome

Rhodes, C., & Brown, A. (2005). Narrative, organizations and research. International Journal of Management Review, 7(3) 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00112.x

Riach, K. (2009). Exploring participant-centred reflexivity in the research interview. Sociology, 43(2), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508101170

Riggio, R. E. (2008). Leadership development: Current state and future expectations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 60(4), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065- 9293.60.4.383

Roberts, L. (2012). From proving to becoming: How positive relationships create a context for self-discovery and self-actualization. In S. Ospina. & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership research (pp. 29–45). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Robottom, I., & Hart, P. (1993). Towards a meta-research agenda in science and environmental education. International Journal of Science Education, 15(5), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150511

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00181

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Roffey-Barentsen, J., & Malthouse, R. (2009). Reflective practice in the lifelong learning sector. Exeter, UK: Learning Matters.

Romme, A. G. L., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999). Circular organizing and triple loop learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management 12(5): 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819910289110

Roy, K. (2003). Teachers in nomadic spaces: Deleuze and curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

201

Scapp, R. (2006). Managing to be different: Educational leadership as critical practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Schaafsma, D., Vinz, R., & National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy. (2011). On narrative inquiry: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Schön, D. A. (1971). Beyond the stable state. New York, NY: Norton.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2011). The Sage handbook of social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scott, S. (2002). Fierce conversations: Achieving success at work and in life, one conversation at a time. New York, NY: Viking.

Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Semetsky, I. (2003). The problematics of human subjectivity: Gilles Deleuze and the Deweyan legacy. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 22(3), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022877506539

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.

Sinclair, A. (2007). Leadership for the disillusioned: Moving beyond myths and heroes to leading that liberates. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Smith, F. (1992). To think: In language, learning and education. London, UK: Routledge.

Snell, R., & Chak, A. (1998). The learning organization: Learning and empowerment for whom? Management Learning, 29(3), 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507698293005

Snowden, D. (1999). Story telling: An old skill in a new context. Business Information Review, 16(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382994237045

Solnit, R. (2005). A field guide to getting lost. New York, NY: Viking.

202

Solnit, R. (2014). The encyclopedia of trouble and spaciousness. New York, NY: Trinity University Press.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Starbuck, W. H. (1996). Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies. International Journal of Technology Management, 11 (7/8), 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.1996.025463

Starbuck, W. H. (2009). Unlearning what we knew and rediscovering what we could have known. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2), 240–242. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.antioch.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2009.03.004

Swieringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. (1992). Becoming a learning organization: Beyond the learning curve. Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley.

Teacher Assistants. (n.d.) Occupational outlook handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/OOH/education-training-and- library/teacher-assistants.htm

Tosey, P., Visser, M., & Saunders, M. N. K. (2012). The origins and conceptualizations of “triple-loop” learning: A critical review. Management Learning, 43(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611426239

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007

Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 631–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.007

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

Usher, R., & Edwards, R. (2007). Lifelong learning: Signs, discourses, practices. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.002

Waldorf Education. (2015). Waldorf education: An introduction. Retrieved October 18, 2016, from https://waldorfeducation.org/waldorf_education

203

Wang, V. X., & Cranton, P. (2013). Transformative learning and technology in adult and vocational education. International Journal of Information & Communication Technology Education, 9(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2013010103

Wang, V. X., & King, K. P. (2006). Understanding Mezirow's theory of reflectivity from Confucian perspectives: A model and perspective. Radical Pedagogy, 8(1), 1–17.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

Weick, K. E., & Westley, F. (1996). Organizational learning: Affirming an oxymoron. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 440–458). London, UK: Sage.

Welty, E. (1983). One writer’s beginnings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yin, R. K. (1999). Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Services Research, 34(5), 1209–1224.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yu, J. E. (2006). Creating “rhizomatic systems” for understanding complexity in organizations. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 19(4), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213- 006-9022-8

Yu, J. E., & Lee, J. W. (2008). Creating rhizomatic networks and ethics for the marginalized group. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 21(4), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-008-9095-7

Yuthas, K., Dillard, J., & Rogers, R. (2004). Beyond agency and structure: Triple-loop learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(2), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:busi.0000033616.14852.82

Zimmerman, B. J., & Hurst, D. K. (1993). Breaking the boundaries: The fractal organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269324006